Kare and Bausa v Imperial and Appeals Court

• Jurisdiction: Filipinas
• Court: Supreme Court (Philippines)
• Date: 22 October 1957

Philippines, Supreme Court.

Kare and Bausa

and

Imperial and the Court of Appeals.

War Termination of Proclamation of peace Meaning of phrase the termination of the present war in Greater East Asia The law of the Philippines.

The Facts.This was an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeals regarding a contract of sale with right of repurchase by which certain real estate in Tabaco, Albay, was conveyed to the defendant by the plaintiff. The contract, which had been executed during the Japanese occupation in consideration of P25,000 in Japanese war notes, provided for repurchase within a one year period beginning six months after the termination of the present war in Greater East Asia. The repurchase price was fixed at P25,000 in legal tender. The plaintiff's offer to repurchase in Japanese war notes on March 26, 1946, was rejected, and, after further unsuccessful negotiations, this action was filed on March 12, 1947. Kare and Bausa, to whom the defendant had assigned an interest in the property, were allowed to intervene.

The Court below held that the war ended on September 2, 1945, the date of the Japanese surrender, but that the plaintiff had not validly offered to repurchase during the period stipulated since he had not offered P25,000 in Philippine currency.

On appeal, the judgment of the Court of Appeals, as modified on reconsideration, was that the war had not yet ended, but that since a repurchase agreement having a duration of greater than ten years was illegal Under the Philippine Civil Code the plaintiff might repurchase the realty on payment of P25,000 in Philippine currency.

The plaintiff and intervenors appealed.

Held: that the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed in part. The Court held that the filing of this action, on March 12, 1947, was an act to safeguard the plaintiff's right of repurchase, and thus a valid offer of repurchase.

The Court said (in part): The question to determine is when did said war of Greater East Asia end. This Court in the case of De la Paz Fabie v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-6386, promulgated on Match 29, 1955, said:

Now, if under the contract of sale with right of repurchase, the termination of the Greater East Asia War is to be based on its legal meaning or legal sense, namely, official proclamation, the next question that arises is, when was said official proclamation made. In the case of Navarre v. Barredo, et al., G. R. No. L-8660, promulgated on May 21, 1956, we said:

In the legal sense,...