dichoso v roxas
DESCRIPTION
Dichoso v RoxasTRANSCRIPT
Dichoso v. Roxas
GR No. L-17441 July 31, 1962
5 SCRA 781
FACTS:
Roxas sold to Dichoso and Hernandez a parcel of unregistered coconut land, subject to the
condition that the vendor could repurchase the land within 5 years from the date of sale. Roxas received
from Dichoso several sums of money as initial or advance payments, with the agreement that Roxas
would sell the same property, by absolute sale, to Dichoso. Out of their remaining balance, they would
use P850 to repurchase the property from Borja and Alanguilan within the period stipulated. Dichoso
informed Borja of their readiness to repurchase and sent Roxas a check. Roxas returned the check with
the request that they indorsed it to Borja and Alanguilan when they make the repurchase. Despite the
repeated demands and representations, Roxas and Borja had deliberately failes to execute the
corresponding deed of absolute sale and deed of resale.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a double sale.
HELD:
No. The contract between the petitioners and Roxas was a mere promise to sell because Roxas
merely promised to execute a deed of absolute sale upon Dichoso ’s completion of payment. On the date
that Roxas could possibly sell sell or convey in relation to the property in question was her right to
repurchase the same from Borja. The private document executed between Roxas and Dichoso can be
considered as an assignment by Roxas to Dischoso of her right to repurchase which Roxas only had
knowledge thereof when Dichoso attempted to make the repurchase. Such being its condition, it could
not possibly give rise to the case of one and the same property having been sold to two different
purchasers. The sale in favor of Borja was of the property itself, while the one in favor of Dichoso, if not
a mere promise to assign, was at most an actual assignment of the right to repurchase the same
property. Art. 1544, par. 3 of the CC do not apply.