Dichoso vs Roxas

Laura Roxas (Respondent) sold to Celso Borja an

unregistered coconut land for 850php with the
condition that the vendor could repurchase it for
5 years but not less than 3 years from the date
it was sold.
Roxas received 770php from Dichoso (Petitioner)
after agreeing that she would sell the same
property to him by absolute sale amounting to
2k leaving him with a balance of 1230php
wherein he would use 850php to repurchase the
property from Roxas.
Upon Roxas request Dichoso sent a check worth
320php as full payment and consideration of the
deed of absolute sale. After which, they
informed Borja. Roxas then sent the checks back
to be re-endorsed to Borja. By the time Dichoso
made representations to Borja about the
repurchase, Roxas and Borja deliberately failed
to execute corresponding deed of absolute sale.

Borja then filed a motion to dismiss against

Dichoso on grounds that he had no cause of
action because the contract was between Borja
and Roxas alone.

ISSUE: W/N Dichoso has the right to repurchase the

land sold to Borja by Roxas?
RULING:
No. The contract between Borja and Roxas was a mere
promise to sell upon the completion of payment. The
private document executed by Dichoso and Roxas is an
assignment for Dichosos purchase. Thus the sale
made to Borja was the property itself while Dichoso
was left with a promise of repurchase. Therefore, Art.
1544 does not apply.
DOCTRINE: Art. 1544 Par 3 Should there be no
inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person
who in good faith was in first possession; and, in the
absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest
title, provided there is good faith.