Leal v. IAC (Case Digest) G.R. No. L-65425

Leal v. IAC
G.R. No. L-65425
November 5, 1987

IRENEO LEAL, JOSE LEAL, CATALINA LEAL, BERNABELA LEAL, VICENTE LEAL EUIOGIA LEAL PATERNO RAMOS, MACARIO DEL ROSARIO, MARGARITA ALBERTO, VICTORIA TORRES, JUSTINA MANUEL, JULIA MANUEL, MELANIA SANTOS, CLEMENTE SAMARIO, MARIKINA VALLEY, INC., MIGUELA MENDOZA, and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL, petitioners,
vs.
TH E HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT (4th Civil Cases Division), and VICENTE SANTIAGO (Substituted by SALUD M. SANTIAGO), respondents

Facts:
On March 21, 1941, a document entitled “Compraventa”, written entirely in Spanish and involving three parcels of land, was executed by the private respondents’ predecessors-in-interest, Vicente Santiago and his brother Luis Santiago, in favor of Cirilo Leal, the deceased father of some of the petitioners. It was stated in the document that the lands shall not be sold to any other person except only to the seller Vicente Santiago or to his heirs or successors. However, between 1960 and 1965, the Leals had already mortgaged or leased the lands to their co-petitioners. Sometime before the agricultural year 1966-1967, Vicente Santiago approached the petitioners and offered to repurchase the properties. The petitioners refused.

Issue:
Is the contract stating that the lands should not be sold to any other party except the seller thereof valid?

Ruling:
No. A prohibition to alienate would be a subversion of public policy, which does not favor unwarranted restrictions on the right to ownership. The contract perpetually prohibits the sale of the lands to other parties and is a restriction to ownership, which is contrary to public policy. Even according to Article 1508 of the Civil Code of Spain (Article 1606 of the Civil Code of the Philippines), the right to repurchase, in the absence of an expressed agreement as to time, shall last four years from the date of the contract. Even if the contract validly vested a right to Santiago, his attempt to repurchase the properties was made only a quarter of a century later, which obviously renders the right expired.