2. Case Digest Tolentino vs. Gonzales

SEVERINO TOLENTINO and POTENCIANA MANIO (Plaintiffs-Appellants) Vs. BENITO GONZALEZ S C!IAM ("efendants-Appellee) G.R. N#. $%&&' A*+*st ,$ ,$ /ACTS0

Before November 28, 1922, appellants Tolentino and Manio purchased land from Luzon Rice Mills, Mills, nc!, nc!, for "hp2#,$ "hp2#,$$$ $$ pa%abl pa%ablee in three three instal installme lments nts!! The follo& follo&in' in' stipul stipulati ations ons of the a'reement ()ontract of "urchase* &ere as follo&s+ 1) The first installment of "2,$$$ &as due on or before the Ma% 2, 1921! 192 1! 2) The second installment of "8,$$$ &as due on or before Ma% 1, 1921! interest &as due and pa%able on or about November $, 3) The balance of "1#,$$$ at 12- interest

1922! 4) The failure of the purchaser (plaintiffs.appellants* to pa% the balance of said purchase  price or an% of the installments on the date a'reed upon &ould result to the propert%  bou'ht bein' reverted to the ori'inal o&ner! The follo&in' events transpired as follo&s+ 1* The first first and second install installments ments &ere &ere paid so far as the the record sho&s sho&s upon the due dates! dates! 2* The balance balance of "1#,$$$ "1#,$$$ due on said said )ontract )ontract of "urchas "urchasee &as paid paid on or about /ecember  /ecember  1, 1922! * 0n the date date &hen &hen the the bala balanc ncee of "1#,$$ "1#,$$$ $ &ith &ith inter interes estt &as &as paid paid,, the the vendo vendorr of said said  propert% had issued from the sellers Transfer Transfer )ertificate of Title (T)T* No! $ to that of  the bu%ers (T)T No! #28*! * 0n November November 3, 1922, the represen representativ tativee of the vendor of the the propert% in in 4uestion 4uestion &rote a letter letter to the appellant "otenciana "otenciana Manio, notif%in' notif%in' the latter that if the balance of said indebtedness &as not paid, an action &ould be brou'ht for the purpose of recoverin' the  propert%, to'ether &ith dama'es from non.compliance &ith the condition of the )ontract of "urchase! n order to pa% his obli'ation, appellant Tolentino applied for loan from 5onzalez on condition that he &ould e6ecute a pacto de retro sale on the propert% in favor of appellee 5onzalez! 7pon maturit% of the loan, Tolentino Tolentino defaulted! ence, appellee 5onzalez demanded recover% of the the land! Tolentino Tolentino contends that the pacto de retro retro sale is a mort'a'e and not an absolute absolute sale! The appellee filed an action before the )ourt of irst nstance, &hich ruled in favor of him, and a'ainst Tolentino! ence, the latter raised this appeal! T!E ISS1ES0 ,) 23et3e 23et3e44 t3e se5#nd se5#nd 5#nt4 5#nt4a5 a5tt in 6*e 6*esti sti#n #n e7e5 e7e5*te *ted d 89 appel appellan lantt T#lenti lentin# n# and and appellee G#n:ales 5#nstit*ted a pa5t# de 4et4# #4 a ;#4t+a+e.

$) 23et3e4 a tenant ;a9 53a4+e 3is landl#4d