Estrada v Noble

01 Gregorio Estrada vs Proculo Noble No. 6742-R October 6, 1952 TOPIC: Learned Treatises PONENTE:

AUTHOR: NOTES: CA case. 5th contention yung important. Pero about judicial notice lang yung diniscuss ng CA e. Nilagay ko after noon yung sinabi ni Regalado about sa case. CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE: [REGALADO] Learned treatises are admissible in evidence if (a) the court takes judicial notice thereof, or (b) the same are testified to by a witness expert in the subject. The CA took judicial notice of the Ballantyne Scale of Values. Emergency Recitation: Maximino Noble sold to his son Proculo Noble a lot with a right to repurchase. Maximino conveyed the same property by absolute sale to Estrada. In computing the amount to be paid by Estrada to Proculo in redeeming the property, the CFI used the Ballantine Scale of Values. Proculo objected to its use. The CA said that it is an official document whose publication constituted a leading event of general interest and whose provisions are widely known and have played an important part in the contemporary political history of the country, of which courts of justice could take judicial cognizance. Hence, the CFI did was not wrong in using the Ballantine Scale of Values. FACTS:  This case involves a lot situated in Buhi, Camarines Sur. The lot was formerly the property of Maximino Noble, father of Proculo Noble. On June 22, 1945: Maximino conveyed the same to Proculo by means of a public deed.  Proculo claims that the transaction between him and Maximino was one of absolute sale, but the deed was termed and worded as a sale with right of repurchase because Maximino was afraid that he might dispose of the property.  On February 28, 1948: Maximino, by means of another public deed, conveyed the same property by way of absolute sale to Estrada for P3,000. Of this amount, only P2,300 was paid to Maximino, the balance of P700 having been retained by Estrada, as per agreement between the parties, for the redemption of the property from Proculo.  Shortly after the execution of the sale to Estrada, Estrada approached Proculo and offered to redeem the property. Proculo refused the offer. Hence, this action for conventional redemption to compel Proculo to reconvey to Estrada the lot.  The CFI ruled in favor of Estrada and ordered Proculo to execute a deed of resale. ISSUE/HELD: Whether Estrada can redeem the property? Yes. RATIO: Contention and Ruling: (10 assignments of error talaga yung inalleged ni Proculo, pero pinagsama sama ng SC yung iba) 1st contention: Proculo contends that the agreement between him and Maximino was that the sale of the property was absolute, and that Estrada knew that Proculo was holding the property as absolute owner. CA said that the deed, as its language clearly conveys, a deed of sale with right to repurchase. It is true that Proculo testified that the understanding between him and Maximino was that the sale was absolute, and that it was only made in the form of sale with a right to repurchase because his father was afraid that he might dispose of the property. This statement, however, is not corroborated by any other evidence of record. No memorandum of the alleged agreement was presented. None of the instrumental witnesses was placed on the witness stand to corroborate it. Not even the testimony of Maximino himself was produced. 2nd contention: Proculo contends that Estrada had not acquired under the deed of absolute sale between him and Maximino the right to redeem the property. CA said that the contention is untenable. The said deed validly conveyed to Estrada all the rights and interests that at the time the vendor had in the property, which included the right to repurchase, a right which, like any other real right that goes with the property, may be sold or assigned. 3rd contention: Proculo contends that even granting that Estrada had acquired the right to redeem the property, nevertheless the CFI should have dismissed the action for Estrada has not perfected his right of action as he had not deposited with the court the redemption price. CA said that under our jurisdiction a bona fide offer to redeem, with tender of the redemption

price, is sufficient to preserve the vendor’s right of action. Estrada, after Maximino deeded the property to him, approached Proculo and offered to repurchase it. It also appears that Estrada filed a complaint in this action, which was equivalent to an offer to redeem and had the effect of preserving the right of redemption. 4th contention: Proculo contends the applicability of the Ballatine scale of values; that as no evidence of any kind regarding the existence and provision of said document has been presented, the CFI should not have applied it, and, instead it should have fixed the redemption price of the property at P3,100, which was the amount paid by Proculo. Proculo used as basis the case of Rogers v Smith, Bell and Co.. CA said that this claim is without merit. In this case, the sale involve is one with a right to repurchase. It did not create a debtor-creditor relationship between the parties. 5th contention: Proculo contends that the CFI committed an error in applying the Ballatine scale of values. CA said that this conversion table was submitted by DR. Ballantine to the President in his capacity as economic adviser. It contained a recommendation for the adoption of measures which were greatly needed to solve the problem created by transaction made during the Japanese occupation and to hasten the economic recovery of the country. The table was embodied in a bill which the President sent to Congress for enactment. The SC, CA and the different CFI in the country have repeatedly applied it provisions in numerous cases. It is, therefore, an official document whose publication constituted a leading event of general interest and whose provisions are widely known and have played an important part in the contemporary political history of the country, of which courts of justice could take judicial cognizance. And there can be no doubt of the propriety of the CFI’s action in applying the table to the transaction at bar. No evidence of the rate of exchange between Japanese occupation currency and Philippine currency at the time said transaction took place having been presented, the case is one which calls for the application of said conversion table. The CA also said that the computation of the CFI was correct. It may be gleaned from the terms of the deed (between Maximino and Proculo) that the sum of P180 and P2,420, Japanese occupation currency, were paid to Maximino (the P180 paid in the month of July 1944 and P2,420 paid subsequent to that date but prior to the liberation of Camarines Sur. Proculo, therefore, is entitled to the equivalent in Philippine currency of the P180, Japanese occupation currency, in the month of July 1944, and as to the amount of P2,420, Japanese occupation currency, at least, to its equivalent in the month of December 1944. [REGALADO] Learned treatises are admissible in evidence if (a) the court takes judicial notice thereof, or (b) the same are testified to by a witness expert in the subject. The CA took judicial notice of the Ballantyne Scale of Values. DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):