NICANOR JACINTO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JUANA FAJARDO AND FELIX GREGORIO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija in an action of reivindicacion
with respect to three parcels of land situated in said province, having
an area of 72.8 hectares, and more particularly described in paragraph
2 of the plaintiff’s petition.

It is alleged in said petition that the plaintiff is the
absolute owner of said lands and that the defendants are his tenants
under contract to pay an annual rental of P4,000 in March of each year;
that the defendants owe a balance of P2,350 on the rental due in March,
1930, and P4,000 on the rental due in March, 1931, making a total of
P6,350 past due at the time the petition was filed; that although
demand has been made, defendants refuse either to surrender the
possession of said lands or to pay the rent.

The answer of the defendants, besides making a general denial,
presents a special defense and a counter-demand. The special defense is
as follows: That the deed of sale with pacto de retro
executed on April 5,1922, by the defendants conveying the said lands to
the plaintiff is fictitious and null; that said deed and the rental
contract whereby the defendants were to remain in possession were used
to disguise a usurious loan; that the certificate of transfer of title
which the plaintiff obtained in the year 1926 and by means of which he
consolidated his ownership to said lands was obtained without the
knowledge and consent of the defendants; that the defendants are in
possession of said lands and have never sold them to the plaintiff or
any other purchaser.

The counter-demand is, in substance, as follows: That on January 18,1922, the defendants transferred to the plaintiff with pacto de retro
for a consideration of P39,100 four tracts of land described in the
counter-demand with the right of repurchase on or before June 30, 1922;
that on June 12, 1922, the defendants paid the plaintiff the said sum
of P39,100; that notwithstanding having received said payment the
plaintiff, in violation of his contract and without the consent of the
defendants, sold and transferred the said lands to Purificacion Soriano.

Besides praying to be absolved from the demands set up in the
petition, the defendants pray that they have judgment against the
plaintiff for the sum of P28,806.50 which they allege was interest paid
to the plaintiff, and also P5,000 for attorney’s fees and also P39,100
with legal interest referred to in their counter-demand.

The answer (and counter-demand) is sworn to by Felix Gregorio who
states that he has read the same and knows its contents and states that
all the allegations thereof are true according to his best knowledge
and understanding.

The two principal questions in this case are: First, whether the deed of April 5, 1922, is a sale with pacto de retro
or a disguised mortgage; second, whether the plaintiff made the
conveyance to Purificacion Soriano referred to in the contract in fraud
of the defendants.

Considering the counterclaim first, it is established by Exhibit 8
that the plaintiff received from the defendant Juana Fajardo the sum of
P39,100 as the repurchase price of her lands which she had sold to the
plaintiff with pacto de retro in January, 1922. It is also
established by Exhibit F that the plaintiff reconveyed said lands, not
to the defendant Juana Fajardo, but to her daughter, the said
Purificacion Soriano. The evidence, both oral and written, is
overwhelming that said transfer to Purificacion was made with the
knowledge and consent of both defendants. The defendant Juana herself
signed said deed as a witness. The P39,100 which was paid to the
plaintiff was the money of Purificacion Soriano. It appears further
that when Purificacion presented said deed, Exhibit F, in the land
registration case for the purpose of obtaining a Torrens title, the
defendant Gregorio assisted her and testified in her behalf. After
Purificacion obtained her certificate of transfer of title the
defendants (her parents) filed suit against her in the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija (civil case No. 4339) for the purpose of
getting possession of the four parcels of land conveyed to her by Dr.
Jacinto as aforesaid (Exhibit F). The trial court rendered judgment in
favor of Purificacion and Juana Fajardo and her husband Felix Gregorio
appealed to this court. In our decision promulgated February 3, 1930,
G. R. No. 31019,^[1] this court, in affirming the judgment, said:

“Teniendo en cuenta todas las circunstancias del
caso y el hecho de que la demandante fue testigo en el otorgamiento de
la escritura de venta Exhibito F por el Dr. Nicanor Jacinto y su esposa
Rosario Pantangco a favor de Purificacion Soriano, y su codemandante
Felix Gregorio declaro a favor de dicha Purificacion Soriano en apoyo
de la solicitud de e”sta para la adjudicacion y registro a su favor de
las cuatro parcelas de terreno descritas en el primer motivo de accion,
somos de opinion y asi declaraxnos que la preponderancia de hechos
probatorios establece que Purificacion Soriano es duena absoluta de
dichas cuatro parcelas de terreno por haberlas recomprado del Dr.
Nicanor Jacinto y de su esposa Rosario Pantangco con su propio peculio.”

There is not a scintilla of evidence in the record of the case
before us to contradict the conclusions of this court in G. R. No.
31019 as above stated. Therefore, the counterclaim which the defendants
have filed, is utterly without foundation and the oath of Felix
Gregorio that the allegations of the counterclaim are true according to
his beat knowledge and understanding, is false.

On the first question involved in this case, namely, whether the
deed of April 5, 1922, of the defendants to the plaintiff was a sale
with pacto de retro or a disguised usurious mortgage, the
plaintiff submitted the testimony of six witnesses. The defendants
offered only the testimony of Felix Gregorio. As the question in this
case is primarily one of fact and of the credibility of the witnesses,
we do not hesitate to declare the preponderance of the evidence
unquestionably in favor of the plaintiff. It is unnecessary to review
this evidence. The deed of April 5, 1922 (Exhibit 1) is an unambiguous
sale with pacto de retro, and the defendant has proven no
circumstances that warrant this court in impeaching said document. (Cf.
Tolentino and Manio vs. Gonzalez Sy Chiam, 50 Phil., 558.) The judgment
below is affirmed with costs against the appellants.

Street, Villa-Real, Abad Santos, and Diaz, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Gregorio and Fajardo vs. Soriano and Lopez, not reported.