SECOND DIVISION

SPS. ESTELITO BAGADIONG and REMEDIOS BAGADIONG, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
PLACIDA VDA. DE ABUNDO, assisted by her son JOAQUIN ABUNDO, JR., respondents.

In Civil Case No. 1043, the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes 10th Judicial District, Branch II declared the contract in question captioned "Deed of Sale Under Pacto de Retro" an equitable mortgage and accordingly rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which is as follows —

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the aforesaid decision was affirmed. Hence, the instant petition for review.

It is the contention of petitioners that the contract in question is a valid sale with right to repurchase and not an equitable mortgage.

Hereunder is the said contract:

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

(SGD.) PLACIDA VDA. DE ABUNDO (Vendor)

SGD.) REMEDIOS R. BAGADIONG (Vendee)

WITH OUR CONSENT:

(SGD.) PANFILO ABUNDO (SGD.) ISABEL ABUNDO

(SGD.) IMELDA ABUNDO

(SGD.) JOAQUIN ABUNDO, Jr. (SGD.) FLORENTINO ABUNDO

(SGD.) EUGENIO ABUNDO

(Exh. A, p. 7, Record)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

(p. 6, Record)

The petition is meritorious.

Under Article 1602 of the New Civil Code an equitable mortgage is presumed in any of the following cases:

(1) When the price of a sale with right to repurchase is unusually inadequate;

(2) When the vendor remains in possession as lessee or otherwise;

(3) When upon or after the expiration of the right to repurchase another instrument extending the period of redemption or granting a new period is executed;

(4) When the purchaser retains for himself a part of the purchase price;

(5) When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the thing sold;

(6) In any other case where it may be fairly inferred that the real intention of the parties is that the transaction shall secure the payment of the debt or the performance of any other obligation.

From the evidence on record We find that none of the above instances enumerated under Art. 1602 is present in this case. The vendor, Abundo, has not remained in possesion of the land as lessee or otherwise. On the contrary the Vendee, Bagadiong, has been in actual possession of the land from the time of the sale to the present. After the sixth month repurchase period no instrument extending the period of repurchase was executed by the parties. Neither was there a granting by the vendee-a-retro, in favor of the vendor-a-retro, of a new period within which to repurchase the property. As purchaser, Bagadiong never retained a part of the purchase price. In the deed of sale, there is no stipulation that Abundo, the vendor, binds herself to pay the taxes of the land. Nowhere in the deed of sale can there be found a hint that it was made to secure the payment of a debt or the performance of any other obligation.

While there is no trace of any of the cases enumerated under Article 1602 there are evident manifestations of a genuine sale with right of repurchase. They are:

(a) A purchase price which is "adequate;"

The deed of conveyance states the purchase price as P1,500.00 for a parcel of
riceland (but still barren) with an area of 863.82 sq. m. and an assessed value of P40.00. Incidentally, the said land was purchased by vendor Abundo from Estelita Taconda for
P300.00;

(b) An immediate delivery of the property by the vendor to the vendee;

Bagadiong cultivated the same to rice and has since then been improving the property to the exclusion of Abundo;

(c) The religious payment of the taxes of the land by the vendee, not only during the repurchase period, but during all the years after the expiration of such period;

(d) The neglect of the vendor to pay the taxes on the land is rather strange, if not irreconcilable behaviour of one who claims to retain the naked ownership of such land, as a mortgagor, and

(e) The inaction of Abundo to redeem the property for a period of 8 years from the date of the execution of the deed.

All the foregoing circumstances are highly indicative of a contract of sale between the parties rather than a mortgage agreement.

Besides, it is a settled rule that the contract is the law between the parties. When the words of a contract are plain and readily understandable, there is no room for construction. (Dihiansan vs. Court of Appeals, 153 SCRA 712).

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals sought to be reviewed is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and another one rendered dismissing Civil Case No. 1043 of the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.