Onglenco vs. Ozaeta (70 Phil. 43)

By Ashley Patalinjug


PETITIONER: Rosendo Onglenco

RESPONDENT: Roman Ozaeta and Melitona Hernandez

Facts:

This is a petition for certiorari for the contention of the petitioner that the CA erred in ruling that the subject land’s sale should be annulled and that the respondents are not absolute owners of the land but with the right to its immediate and peaceful possession.


The case was initially filed in the CFI of Tayabas by the petitioner against the respondents praying that he be declared the sole owner and possessor of the subject land and that the sale of it executed by the Provincial Sheriff of Tayabas by virtue of a writ of execution in Civil Case 3506 in the same court, conveying the aforesaid land to the respondents, be annulled.


The land in question was owned to Gregorio Hernandez and Paciencia Ona. After Hernandex’ death, Ona and her children sold the same to spouses Villanueva and Macalalag. The latter defaulted in paying their balance that lead the former to file a case (Civil Case 3506) against the spouses. The judgment was affirmed on appeal on February 2nd 1935.


Further, the petitioner alleged that the respondents sold the subject land to them in January 11th 1935 and its deed of conveyance was provided in June 22nd of the same year. When the subject land was the subject of execution in Civil Case 3506, the petitioners presented a Third-Party Claim. On the other hand, the respondents claimed that they acquired interest through pacto de retro for the failure of the original owners to exercise their right of redemption and that they acquired the subject property through the execution of July 29, 1935 in Civil Case 3506, with the Shereff’s sale being definitive on September 7, 1936 in default of redemption by the redemption debtors. It was registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds on September 14, 1936.


The Court of Appeals found and so held that, as the alleged sale from Villanueva and Macalalag to the petitioner took place on January 11 1935, or subsequent to the judgment against his vendors in civil case No 3506, it was presumptively fraudulent.


Issue: 

Whether the sale can be rescinded .


Laws: 

- Article 1380.
- Contracts validly agreed upon may be rescinded in the cases established by law. (1290)


Ruling:

No. The sale cannot be rescinded. Contracts capable of rescission are those validly entered into (Art. 1290. Civil Code), as an action to rescind is founded upon and presupposes the existence of a contract (Tan Chay Heng vs. West Coast Life Insurance Co., 51 Phil., 80)


The Court of Appeals held that the sale is to be presumed fraudulent for having been executed posterior to the entry of the judgment against the petitioner’s supposed vendors in civil case No. 3506, evidently in pursuance of the provisions of article 1297 of the Civil Code. But as there is nothing else in the appealed decision to indicate that rescission was contemplated under article 1291 of said Code, the aforesaid presumption must have been considered merely as one of the grounds for holding that the sale is fictitious.