Fact: On December 13, 1954, Laura A. Roxas sold to appellants for the sum of P850.00 a parcel of unregistered coconut land, subject to the condition, inter alia, that the vendor could repurchase it for the same amount within five years, but not earlier than three years, from the date of the sale, which was evidenced by a public document to the appellant, That from November 26, 1955 to July 5, 1957, Roxas had received from appellees several sums of money, their agreement being that after December 13, 1957, Roxas would sell the same property, by absolute sale, to appellees for the total sum of P2,000.00, the aforesaid sum of P770.00 to be considered as initial or advance payment on the purchase price; that out of the balance of P1,230.00, appellees would use the sum of P850.00 to repurchase the property from appellants after December 13, 1954 but within the five years stipulated for the exercise of Roxas’ right to repurchase; that on October 22, 1957, pursuant to Roxas’ request made on July 23, 1957, appellees sent her a check for the sum of P320.00 “in full payment of the P2,000.00 consideration for the deed of absolute sale” and thereafter they informed appellants of their readiness to repurchase the property; that on November 29, 1957 Roxas sent them back the check just referred to with the request that they endorse the same to appellants when they made the repurchase, because it appeared that, aside from the P850.00 consideration of the pacto de retro sale, Roxas had received additional sums from appellants; that again, after December 13, 1957, appellees made representations to appellants that they were ready to make the repurchase, as well as to Roxas for the latter to be ready to execute the corresponding deed of absolute sale in their favor after they had made the repurchase; that notwithstanding these demand and representations, Roxas and appellants had deliberately failed to execute the corresponding deed of absolute sale and deed of resale already mentioned. The lower court rendered a decision in favor of the appellee which on appeal the appellate court concurred.
Issue: Whether the appellees are entitled to the property sold to them by the defendant which was previously sold to the appellant by means of pacto de retro sale which was not repurchased?
Held: No, appellees are not entitled to the reliefs sought in their amended complaint and that whatever remedy they have is exclusively against Laura A. Roxas to recover from her, among other things, what they paid as consideration for the execution of the private document. In the first place, the phraseology employed therein shows that the contract between the parties was a mere promise to sell, on the part of Roxas, because the latter merely promised to execute a deed of absolute sale upon appellees complaining payment to her of the total sum of P2,000.00, of which the P850.00 to be paid to appellants for the repurchase of the property would be an integral part. This repurchase had not yet been made on July 5, 1957, when this Exhibit I was executed. In the second place, an that date all that Roxas could possibly sell or convey in relation to the property in question was her right to repurchase the same from appellants. Consequently, the best consideration that could be given to the private document Exhibit I is that it was an assignment by Roxas to appellees of her right to repurchase of which — according to the evidence — appellants had no knowledge until December 13, 1957 when appellees 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 salt — in favor of appellants was of the property itself, while the one in favor of appellees, if not a mere promise to assign, was at most an actual assignment of the right to repurchase the same property. The provisions of paragraph 3, Article 1544 of the Civil Code of the Philippines do not, therefore, apply.