124 PAULINA CRISTOBAL, ET AL.

, plaintiffs-
appellees,
vs.
MARCELINO GOMEZ, defendant-appellant.
[G.R. No. L-27014 October 5, 1927]
TOPIC:
PONENTE: STREET, J.

AUTHOR:
NOTES: (if applicable)


FACTS:
1.) Epifanio Gomez sold a property with pacto de retro to Luis Yangco for P2500.
2.) It was stipulated that the property is redeemable within five years, the vendor remaining in possession in
the character of lessee.
3.) When the period expired, Gomez failed to redeem the property, Yangco extended it. Gomez still failed to
redeem the property.
4.) In order to redeem, Epifanio asked Babiano Banas for a loan. Banas agreed, with the condition that
Marcelino Gomez and Telesfora Gomez(Siblings of Epifanio) be responsible for the loan.
5.) Marcelino and Telesfora and Banas agreed to the loan.
6.) The Marcelino and Telsfora took possession and administration(Calling it a private partnership in
participation) of the land agreed that the said property shall be returned to Epifanio as soon as the money
that they paid Babiano has been reimbursed.
7.) A year later Epifanio died. He left his widow, petitioner Paulina Cristobal and their children.
8.) Marcelino acquired exclusive rights over the property when Telesfora conveyed her interest to him.
9.) Marcelino sold the property to Banas, with pacto de retro, redeemable within five years.
10.) He redeemed it from Banas. Marcelino submitted a notarial document wherein Epifanio certifies that
Marcelino had requested him to draw up a notarial act showing the properties which Marcelino was known
to be the true owner. Marcelino relies upon this instrument as proving title in him, contending that Epifanio
and his successors are estopped from claiming said lot.
11.) The Heirs of Epifanio Gomez are now suing marcelino Gomez for the possession of the said property.
12.) The lower court ruled in favor of the respondents, hence this appeal.


ISSUE(S): Do the Heirs of Epifanio Gomez have the right to the said property?
HELD: Yes
RATIO:
The facts sketched above exhibit the dominant features of the case, and reflection upon their import conducts us to the
conclusion that the trial court committed no error in holding that the defendant Marcelino Gomez must surrender the
property involved in this lawsuit; and he being now dead, the same obligation devolves on his heirs. The so-called
partnership agreement (Exhibit A) between Marcelino Gomez and his sister created a trust for the express purpose of
rescuing the property of Epifanio Gomez; and now that the purpose has been accomplished, the property should be
returned to his legitimate children, as provided in paragraph (i) of the agreement.
But it is claimed for the applicant that the trust agreement (Exhibit A) was kept secret from Epifanio Gomez and that,
having no knowledge of it, he could not have accepted it before the stipulation was revoked. This contention is
contradicted in act by the testimony of Bibiano Baas, who says that Epifanio Gomez was present when the arrangement
for the repurchase of the property from Yangco was discussed and that he assented thereto. Moreover, Baas states that
after the agreement had been executed, he told Epifanio Gomez in the presence of his brother and sister that he should be
well pleased as the object he had in view had been accomplished, meaning, that the property was recorded. But even
supposing that Epifanio Gomez may never have seen the Exhibit A, we have no doubt that he understood the nature of the
arrangement and his assent thereto was a sufficient acceptance. This being true, it was not competent for the parties to the
trust agreement thereafter to dissolve the partnership and destroy the beneficial right of Epifanio Gomez in the property.

CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):