Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 86 views

    Conde vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    BenBulac
    1) In 1938, Dominga Conde sold land to the Alteras with a right to repurchase within 10 years. In 1945, Paciente Cordero, son-in-law of the Alteras, signed a document stating the original deed of sale with repurchase was lost and Pio Altera conceded repurchase to Dominga Conde. 2) Private respondents argued Paciente Cordero only signed to show no objection rather than valid repurchase. The lower court dismissed Dominga Conde's complaint. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dominga Conde, finding the memorandum of repurchase was clear and Paciente Cordero was now bound by

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Conde vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    BenBulac
    86 views2 pages
    1) In 1938, Dominga Conde sold land to the Alteras with a right to repurchase within 10 years. In 1945, Paciente Cordero, son-in-law of the Alteras, signed a document stating the original deed of sale with repurchase was lost and Pio Altera conceded repurchase to Dominga Conde. 2) Private respondents argued Paciente Cordero only signed to show no objection rather than valid repurchase. The lower court dismissed Dominga Conde's complaint. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dominga Conde, finding the memorandum of repurchase was clear and Paciente Cordero was now bound by

    Original Description:

    conde v ca

    Original Title

    49. Conde Vs. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) In 1938, Dominga Conde sold land to the Alteras with a right to repurchase within 10 years. In 1945, Paciente Cordero, son-in-law of the Alteras, signed a document stating the original deed of sale with repurchase was lost and Pio Altera conceded repurchase to Dominga Conde. 2) Private respondents argued Paciente Cordero only signed to show no objection rather than valid repurchase. The lower court dismissed Dominga Conde's complaint. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dominga Conde, finding the memorandum of repurchase was clear and Paciente Cordero was now bound by

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    86 views2 pages

    Conde vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    BenBulac
    1) In 1938, Dominga Conde sold land to the Alteras with a right to repurchase within 10 years. In 1945, Paciente Cordero, son-in-law of the Alteras, signed a document stating the original deed of sale with repurchase was lost and Pio Altera conceded repurchase to Dominga Conde. 2) Private respondents argued Paciente Cordero only signed to show no objection rather than valid repurchase. The lower court dismissed Dominga Conde's complaint. 3) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dominga Conde, finding the memorandum of repurchase was clear and Paciente Cordero was now bound by

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CONDE VS CA before CFI of Leyte, contending that she had validly repurchased

    the property.
    G.R. No. L-40242 December 15, 1982
    - Private respondents adduced evidence that Paciente Cordero only
    Petitioner: DOMINGA CONDE signed the document of repurchase showing that he had no
    Respondent: THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA objection to the repurchase of petitioner, and that he did not
    PACIENTE CORDERO, together with his wife, NICETAS ALTERA, receive any consideration for the alleged property as repurchase.
    RAMON CONDE, together with his wife, CATALINA T. CONDE - Lower Court dismissed the complaint. CA upheld the decision of
    FACTS: the lower court.

    - A Deed of Sale with a right to repurchase was executed between ISSUE:


    petitioner Dominga Conde and the Alteras dated April 7, 1938; WON the Memorandum of Repurchase did not vest any title of the
    the said terms of repurchase states that if at the end of 10 years property back to petitioner
    the land is not repurchased, a new agreement shall be made
    between the parties, and in no case title and ownership shall be HELD:
    vested in the hand of the vendees
    The SC ruled in favor of petitioner, and did not accept the parol
    - In April 1941, the Cadastral Court adjudicated the land to the evidence presented by private respondents. The Memorandum of
    Alteras “subject to the right of redemption by Dominga Conde repurchase was clear. It was even executed in Visayan Dialect which
    within 10 years counting from April 7, 1938…” private respondent understood. Private respondent now is bound by
    the clear terms of the memorandum. He cannot now dispute the
    - In November 1945, private respondent Paciente Cordero, son-in- contents thereof.
    law of the Alteras signed a document in the Visayan dialect. This
    document stated that the Deed of Sale with Repurchase was lost There is nothing in the memorandum showing that Paciento Cordero
    and that Pio Altera concedes the repurchase of the land by the signed the same merely to indicate that he had no objection to
    Condes. However, this deed was not signed by Pio Altera or petitioner’s right of repurchase.
    Casimira Pasagui. Petitioner maintains that because Pio Altera
    was very ill that time, it was Peciente Cordero who executed the Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the judgment of respondent Court of
    deed of resale on behalf of his father-in-law. Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and petitioner is hereby
    declared the owner of the disputed property. If the original of OCT
    - In 1965 Pio Altera sold the land to private respondents Sps. No. N-534 of the Province of Leyte is still extant at the office of the
    Ramon and Catalina Conde. Dominga Conde filed an a complaint Register of Deeds, then said official is hereby ordered to cancel the
    same and, in lieu thereof, issue a new Transfer Certificate of Title in
    the name of petitioner, Dominga Conde.

    You might also like