DOMINGA CONDE vs. CA

FACTS:

            On 7 April 1938, Margarita Conde, Bernardo Conde and Dominga Conde, as heirs of Santiago Conde, sold with right to repurchase, within 10 years from said date, a 1 hectare parcel of agricultural land situated in Burauen, Leyte to Casimira Pasagui and Pio Altera for P165. Three years later, Original Certificate of Title No. N-534 covering the land in question was issued in the name of the Alteras subject to the stipulated right of repurchase by the Condes. On 28 November 1945, Paciente Cordero, son-in-law of the Alteras and their representative, signed a document in Bisaya stating that the Memorandum of Repurchase got lost during World War II despite all diligent searches being made; that the two parcels of land were inherited by the Condes; that Eusebio Amarille was authorized by the Condes to repurchase the land; that they received P165 in consideration of the sale; and that the Condes, by virtue of the repurchase, shall repossess the said parcels of land. Neither the vendees-a-retro, Pio Altera nor Casimira Pasagui, were signatories to that document. Many years later, the pacto de retro document was found. In June 1965, Pio Altera sold the disputed lot to Ramon and Catalina Conde, whose relationship to Dominga does not appear on record. Consequently, in 1969, Dominga filed with the CFI of Leyte a complaint for quieting of title and declaration of ownership against all the respondents. The trial court dismissed the complaint and ordered Dominga to vacate the premises and to deliver the disputed land to respondents. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision and ruled that Dominga failed to validly exercise her right to repurchase because the Memorandum of Repurchase was not signed by the Alteras but by Paciente, who was not authorized to sign for the said vendees-a-retro.

ISSUE:

            Whether or not there was an implied agency when Cordero signed the Memorandum of Repurchase.

HELD:

            Yes. Although the contending parties were legally wanting in their respective actuations, for example Dominga did nothing to formalize her repurchase while the Alteras did nothing to clear their title of the encumbrance therein regarding Dominga’s right to repurchase, the repurchase by Dominga is supported by her admission that she had been in possession since 1945, the date of the repurchase, and has been paying land taxes thereon since then. No new agreement was entered into by the parties as stipulated in the deed of pacto de retro, if the vendors-a-retro failed to exercise their right of redemption within 10 years. If, as alleged, Dominga did not exert an effort to procure Pio Altera’s signature after he had recovered from illness, neither did the Alteras repudiate the deed signed by their son-in-law for 24 years, from which the Alteras are deemed to have incurred in laches. Thus, an implied agency must have been held to have been created by their silence or lack of action, or their failure to repudiate the agency created. (Art. 1869, New Civil Code). Wherefore, Dominga is declared the owner of the land in question.