Supreme Court decision · Civil Law

Menil v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. L-43668-69 · Promulgated November 21, 1978 · Ponente: Guerrero

In brief

This case is about the nullity of a deed of sale within the 5-year prohibitory period and the reimbursement of the sale price with considerations on an agricultural loan secured by mortgage.

Deed of Sale, Homestead, Loan, Mortgage Debt, Court Decision

Related cases

G.R. No. L-38769 Posadas v. Court of Appeals (Previous decision in Civil Law)
G.R. No. L-38367 Corsino et al. v. Nicolas (Next decision in Civil Law)

Full text

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-43668-69 November 21, 1978

POTENCIANO MENIL and wife CRISPINA NAYVE, petitioners,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, AGUEDA GARAN FRANCISCO CALANIAS, MIGUEL NAYVE, JR., and DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

GUERRERO, J.:

Petitioners' first motion for reconsideration having been denied for lack of merit and its denial considered final in the court's Resolution of October 4, 1978, the motion for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration is NOTED.

We must, however, make a correction of typographical errors and a modification in the dispositive portion of Our derision in order to conform to the Court's findings of facts and to the law and jurisprudence applied thereto.

Thus, on page 5 of the Decision, line 11, the date "May 7, 1960 should read "November 3, 1955."

Since We ruled that the deed of sale executed within the 5 years prohibitory period was null and void, the vendor homesteader (the private respondent herein) must return or reimburse the price of the sale to the vendees who are the petitioners.ℒαwρhi৷

Accordingly, par. (3) of the dispositive portion should read.

(3) Ordering respondent Agueda Garan to reimburse petitioners Potenciano Menil and his wife, Crispina Nayve, the slim of P1415.00, the price of the sale, the interest thereon being compensated by the fruits which petitioners had received during their position of the homestead.

We also modify par. (4) of the dispositive portion to read as follows:

(4) Ordering petitioners to pay the agricultural loan obtained by them from the Development Bank of the Philippines for which the land had been mortgaged as collateral In case the loan remains unpaid within thirty (30) days from finality of the judgment, the private respondent, instead of reimbursing P415.00 to the petitioners, may use the same and turn over the amount to the mortgagee to be credited as payment of the mortgage debt.

With respect to the rest of the dispositive portion, Our decision remains.

Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma and Fernandez, JJ., concur.