G.R. No. L-15882




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-15882 November 30, 1962 EULOGIA MINAY, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. BARTOLOME BUENAVENTURA and MARIA JANDUSAY, defendants-appellants. Leodegardo L. Mogol for defendant-appellants. J. L. Caballes for plaintiffs-appellees. PAREDES, J.: On November 30, 1950, Elena Buenaventura Vda. de Minay (plaintiffs' mother) together with plaintiffs, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of a House and Lot located at sitio Isok, Municipality of Boac, Marinduque, in favor of Bartolome Buenaventura, brother of said Elena, the pertinent provisions of which recite — That the cost of a residential building of durable materials erected therein which is declared in the name of my husband is the total value of FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (P4,500). That the balance of the said BARTOLOME BUENAVENTURA is THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P3,250) for and in consideration of the ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P1,250) which we received at various times from BARTOLOME BUENAVENTURA, hereby transfer our property if balance will be fully paid, and that he the said purchase no right to dispose of the same until said property fully paid for in accordance with the terms of the said ABSOLUTE SALE, that the said purchaser further agrees he fails to pay when due, or to perform any of the aforesaid property, shall be attached or levied, upon by creditor of the said purchaser then the said property is to revert to the sellers and then the payments already made are to be forfeited favor in favor of the said sellers, and the latter may then take possession without resorting to court proceedings of said property. That within five years that the said BARTOLOME BUENAVENTURA could not pay the sum of THREE THOSE TWO HUNDRED FIFTY PESOS (P3,250) in case of the payment of the said property, and then this instrument shall come void and of no effect, and the above-named security pledge shall be returned to the heirs of the said Primitivo Minay. After the lapse of the five-year period within which to settle the balance of the purchase price and defendants having failed to pay, plaintiffs instituted before the CFI of Oriental Mindoro, an action for rescission of the Deed of Sale and recovery of the property subject matter of the sale. The issues having been joined by the presentation of the Answer of the defendants and upon determination of the trial, the lower court rendered judgment the positive portion of which reads — PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby considered declaring that the deed of absolute sale Exh. "E" (original) for the plaintiffs and Exh. "1" (carbon copy) defendants is null and void; and that deed Exh. "B" is valid ordering the defendants to deliver to the plaintiffs the said house and lot in question and to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of P500.00 as attorney's fees, with costs. The counter-claim of the defendants is hereby dismissed for lack of merits. Defendants interposed a direct appeal to this stating "issues of fact and of law", were being raised in the appeal. Appellants contend that the lower court erred: (1) In declaring Exhibit "B" and Exhibit "1" null and void; (2) In declaring that the defendants have not full the purchase price for the house and lot in litigation; (3) In declaring that the defendants maliciously refused to return the property in litigation to the plaintiffs-appellees and therefore they should pay P500.00 as damages for attorney's fees; and (4) In not declaring the defendants the true and legal owners of the house and lot in litigation. A cursory examination of the errors assigned will readily show that most of them present questions of fact. Verily, the trial judge, in his order of February 6, 1959, approving the record on appeal, directed that the same "be forwarded to the Court of Appeals, together with the evidence, documentary as well as moral". Furthermore, the value of the property involved in the litigation is only P4,500.00, at the most, far below the jurisdictional amount in order that this court can exercise its appellate jurisdiction. This being the case, let the records hereof be remanded to the Court of Appeals, for proper disposition Section 17 [51, [6], and section 29, Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended. Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur. Bautista, J., took no part. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation