RESULTING TRUST CASE 6 OF whereas, if agreement were evidenced as a loan, defendants might appear

11 in a bad light if the transaction were not dissimulated

DE OCAMPO vs. ZAPORTEZA August 31, i. In view of this, plaintiffs consented to sign the instrument
1929 5. TC: (in favor of DE OCAMPO et al) convinced that plaintiffs gave a substantially
G.R. No. L-30246 J. Villamor correct account of the conversations between the parties which preceded the execution
of the document in question
RECIT READY FACTS: 6. RE INSTRUMENT EXHIBIT A:
Juan Zaporteza et al (herein defendants-appellants) sought to reverse the trial court judgment a. March 1924: instrument executed
holding instrument EXHIBIT A to be a mortgage rather than a sale subject to repurchase; also b. Decree adjudicating Lot # 4210, which includes the 2 parcels of land in
prayed to annul the contract. Appellees, however, contend that contract of sale was only made question, in the registration proceeding thereof, had not yet been issued
to appear as if it were a sale, as suggested by defendants’ attorney, to prevent defendants from i. Issuance took place August 31, 1925 in favor of DE OCAMPO et
appearing in bad light. al
c. Jan 27, 1926: TC that took cognizance of REGISTRATION PROCEEDING,
IMPORTANT: amending its decree, on motion of defendants, by including therein the lien
EXHIBIT A: instrument in question if mortgage or sale subject to repurchase (“pacto de retro”) of a sale subject to repurchase for P3,000 for 3 yrs from March 4, 1924
EXHIBIT 1: Certificate of Transfer issued in favor of Agripino de Ocampo et al (defendants) d. June 18, 1926: original certificate was issued in favor of those to whom the
DEFENDANTS: claim Exhibit A is a sale subject to repurchase lot was adjudicated in accordance with the amended decree
PLAINTIFFS: claim Exhibit A is a mortgage contract e. Sept 14, 1927: Certificate of Transfer (EXHIBIT 1) was issued in favor of
defendants
RULING:
The defendants only hold the certificate of transfer in trust for the plaintiffs with respect to the ISSUES:
portion of the lot planted with 1,300 coconut trees. They are therefore bound to execute a deed in 1. W/N the instrument Exhibit A expresses the true agreement entered into by and
favor of the plaintiff, in favor of the plaintiff, transferring to them said portion planted with between the parties [NO]
1,300 coconut trees
(head’s up: full text is only 3 pages but is confusing) RULING:
1. DULY PROVEN IN THE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF
FACTS: TRANSFER IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE 2
1. CASE: appeal seeking reversal of judgment holding contract EXHIBIT A is a mortgage PARCELS DESCRIBED IN THE INSTRUMENTS EXHIBIT (WITH 700 COCONUT
rather than a sale subject to repurchase and praying that contract be annulled TREES), BUT ALL OF LOT # 4210 (WITH 2,000 COCONUT TREES)
2. DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS: Juan Zaporteza et al maintain that: a. Altho true that deed apparently evidences an agreement of sale subject to
a. That TC erred in holding that Exhibit A is a mortgage deed repurchase; as the plaintiffs-appellees have put in issue a mistake of said
b. That the parties herein submitted an agreed statement of facts wherein it writing, and its failure to express the true intent and agreement of the
appeared that appellees executed the instrument in favor of appellants parties, the presumption established in Sec 285 of Code of Civil Procedure
c. That they received the price of the sale and that there was no fraud in the depends on the evidence in the case.
execution of the instrument in question i. Evident that the certificate of transfer (EXHIBIT 1) insofar as it
3. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES: Agripino de Ocampo et al presented the ff evidence: includes a portion of land planted with 1,300 coconut trees, to
a. That portion of land conveyed to ZAPORTEZA et al by DE OCAMPO et al, which defendants are not at all entitled, should not be given legal
added to the land conveyed to them by the (DECEASED) ALEJANDRO DE effect, especially when said certificate of transfer has been
OCAMPO, only comprises area of land planted with 700 coconut trees obtained by the defendants during the pendency of the present
b. That the conveyance by Alejandro, and that subsequently made by the action wherein the value of the instrument EXHIBIT A is precisely
plaintiffs, were only to secure: the matter in dispute
i. P1,000 received by Alejandro; and
ii. P2,000 furnished by Zaporteza et al to pay off a debt of Alejandro 2. THE INSTRUMENTS EXHIBIT A DOES NOT EXPRESS THE TRUE CONTRACT
to the National Bank (P1,604.44), + funeral expenses (P400) ENTERED INTO BY THE PARTIES
4. By means of witnesses ARIPINO and GREGORIO DE OCAMPO, plaintiffs contend a. And taking for granted that EXHIBIT 1 is valid, we hold, nevertheless, that
that contract between the parties is in reality a simple mortgage as the defendants obtained the amendment of the decree of adjudication by
a. Was made to appear as if it were a sale, subject to repurchase, at the means of said instrument, and having furthermore obtained the Certificate
suggestion of NAZARIO P. DE MESA, attorney for defendants, who told of Transfer of Title knowing that only 2 parcels of Lot 4210 had been
them that there was no objection to drawing up the deed in that form; transferred to them, application must here be made of the doctrines held in
several cases* to the effect that:
 i. THE DEFENDANTS ONLY HOLD THE CERTIFICATE OF
TRANSFER IN TRUST FOR THE PLAINTIFFS WITH RESPECT
TO THE PORTION OF THE LOT PLANTED WITH 1,300
COCONUT TREES
ii. They are therefore bound to execute a deed in favor of the
plaintiff, in favor of the plaintiff, transferring to them said
portion planted with 1,300 coconut trees.
b. * “several cases”:
i. Uy Aloc v. Cho Jan Ling (12 PHIL 202)
ii. Camacho v. Municipality of Baliuag (28 PHIL 466)
iii. Severino v Severino (44 PHIL 343)

3. RE THE 2 PORTIONS DESCRIBED IN THE INSTRUMENT EXHIBIT A: affirmed

judgment appealed from, ruling that within 90 days from the date this decision
becomes final, administrator of estate of deceased Alejandro de Ocampo must redeem
the land which is the subject matter of the contract, paying the sum of P3,000 to the
defendants who shall restore said land to the administrator, provided that if the
administrator fails to exercise this right within the period fixed, ownership of land
described in deed exhibit a shall be consolidated in defendants