Posted by: James L. Jalon on July 25, 2018
FACTS:
Mary Ruth C. Elizalde was an American citizen who owned a house situated on a parcel of land in Forbes Park, Makati. On May 22, 1975 she entered into a deed of sale over the property in favor of Parex Realty Corp. (Parex), for and in consideration of the amount of P625,000.00 payable in 25 equal annual installments of P25,000.00 commencing on May 22, 1975 and ending on May 22, 1999. On the same date as of the former, Parex executed a Contract of Lease with Elizalde, whereby the same parcel of land was leased to the latter with a term of 25 years for a annual rent of P25,000.08.
Petitioner, the administrator of Elizalde's estate demanded from respondents the reconveyance of the title to the property to the estate of Elizalde or in alternative to assign all shares of Parex to said estate. Such demand fell on deaf ears.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale-lease-back agreement of the parties has a simulated and fictitious nature.
HELD:
HELD:
We are not prepared to delve into the motive of Elizalde in transferring the land only and not the house thereon, inasmuch as that involves a factual question. In this connection, petitioner, in his reply contends that the principal issue in this case i.e., whether the sale-lease-back was simulated, is a question of law since it involves the interpretation of the terms of the sale-lease-back was simulated, it is imperative that we look into the true intention of the parties, rather than the correct interpretation of the written stipulations in the contracts. That, again, is a question of fact.
Anent petitioners charge of influence peddling we find that it is purely speculative and unfounded. Moreover. It is anchored on evidence that can only be characterized as double hearsay. As respondents correctly point out the allegation that Atty. Fernando F. Villoria of the Quasha Law Firm was with Mr. Manuel Barcelona in Justice Ramon Barcelonas office on January 16, 1998 is based on information relayed to petitioner by his messenger, who, in turn, heard it from a clerk assigned in Justice Barcelona's office. Being based on incompetent evidence, the charge does not merit the attention of this court.
Anent petitioners charge of influence peddling we find that it is purely speculative and unfounded. Moreover. It is anchored on evidence that can only be characterized as double hearsay. As respondents correctly point out the allegation that Atty. Fernando F. Villoria of the Quasha Law Firm was with Mr. Manuel Barcelona in Justice Ramon Barcelonas office on January 16, 1998 is based on information relayed to petitioner by his messenger, who, in turn, heard it from a clerk assigned in Justice Barcelona's office. Being based on incompetent evidence, the charge does not merit the attention of this court.
