AGUSTIN ASENCIO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, V&. ROMAN BAUTISTA ET AL., DEFENDANTS. ROMAN BAUTISTA, APPELLANT.

This is an appeal from so much of the judgment entered in the court below as
adjudicates title to the parcel of land described in subsection (a) of
section 2 of the complaint in favor of the plaintiff, Agustin Asencio, and
against the defendant, Roman Bautista.

As we read the evidence, it clearly discloses that this parcel of land was
originally the property of Bautista; that Bautista executed a deed of sale of
this property to one Antonio Baladjay, but did not give possession because the
purchaser failed to pay over the purchase price, amounting to P3,500; that
thereafter Baladjay, finding himself unable to pay the purchase price,
reconveyed the land to the vendor, the defendant Bautista, the deed of
reconveyance being executed in a private document; that, thereafter, Baladjay,
who appears to have been indebted to the plaintiff Asencio, executed a deed of
conveyance of all his lands, including among others the land now in question, to
Asencio, for the sum of P543, with a right to repurchase reserved to the vendor;
that this deed of conveyance was duly acknowledged before a notary public, and
was therefore a public document; that the time within which the right to
repurchase could have been exercised under this document had expired before this
action was instituted; that none of these documents was registered; and that the
date of the reconveyance by Baladjay to the defendant Bautista, antidated the
date of the deed of conveyance (with reserved right to repurchase) to the
plaintiff Asencio.

Upon these findings of fact, it is very clear that none of the deeds having
been recorded, and the defendant having secured a deed of reconveyance of the
land in question, and having been in possession thereof before the deed of
conveyance was executed in favor of the plaintiff, he, the defendant, must be
held to be the owner of this land, under the provisions of article 1473 of the
Civil Code.

We cannot agree with the contentions of counsel as to the conclusive
character against the vendor and his successors in interest of a mere recitation
in a deed of conveyance that the purchase price thereof has been received by the
vendor. While such a statement strongly tends ta confirm a contention that the
purchase price has been paid, it is not conclusive; and, when, as in the case at
bar, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary, it will not be held to be
conclusive against the vendor.

The doctrine, supported by numerous citations of authority, is thus stated in
17 Cyclopedia, 656:

“Recital of payment.—A recital in a written instrument as to the
payment of the consideration is merely in the nature of a receipt and may be
contradicted, unless such contradiction would have the effect of rendering
nugatory some substantial and contractual provision of a valid written contract
or undertaking, or in the case of a conveyance, where the grantor or those
claiming under him attempt, by contradicting the consideration clause, to defeat
the operation of the deed or establish a resulting trust in the grantee.”

The judgment entered in the court below in so far as it affects the parcel of
land described in subsection (a) of section 2 of the complaint must be
reversed, without costs in this instance to either party, and the complaint, in
so far as it relates to this parcel of land should be dismissed. So ordered.

Torres, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.