Facts: Spouses Lacuesta, owners of an unregistered, irrigated Riceland in Badoc

Ilocos norte executed a document in favor of spouses Labasan. In the document it

was stated that the Spouses Lacuesta of selling one parcel of land owned by us in
Sitio Mabusay and that it can be reconveyed provided ten years shall not have
elapsed and when they have the same anount of money as the spouses Labasan
gave 225 pesos. In the complaint it was alleged that the spouses lacuesta secured a
loan of P225 from Gelacio Labasan, in 1943 Labasan refused to accept their
payment and claimed that they are the rightful owner of the property. In the answer
to the complaint, only one special defense was raised that the lacuesta conveyed by
means of a written document the land with a right to repurchase for ten years but
the lacuesta failed to exercise their right as a result they become the rightful owner
of the land. The lower court declared that it was a pacto de retro sale while the CA
set aside the judgement of the trial court and declared it as an equitable mortgage.
Issue: WON the executed document was a pacto de retro sale or an equitable
mortgage.
Ruling: The SC affirm the decision of the appellate court. It is a basic fundamental
rule in the interpretation of a contract that if the terms therof are clear and leave no
doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties the literal meaning of the
stipulation shall control, but when the words are appear to be contrary to the
evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former. Art. 1371 of
the NCC: In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their
contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered. The reason
behind the executed document was the urgent necessity for money. The amount of
P225 even in 1927 was too inadequate for a purchase price of an irrigated land. The
land being valued at the time for no less than P1,000.00. Lacuesta continued with
the physical possession of the property. Labasan did not declare the property In his
name for taxation purposes nor did he pay taxes thereon since the execution of the
document in 1927. Labasan failed to take any step since 1927 to consolidate their
alleged ownership over the land.

Number 65
Facts: On July 18, 1960, the Dineros acting as receiver of the La Paz Ice plant and
cold storage in Iloilo filed and action in the CFI of Iloilo for the annulment of
judgement rendered against La paz by the CFI or manila. Named as defendants
Marciano roque in whose favor judgement was rendered together with Jose Manuel
and Paquita lezama. The complaint alledged that because of the collusion between
the defendants, Roque was able to collect a sum of 150,000 as loan to La paz. And
that Dineros was not able to receive the summons from the CFI of Manila. At the
hearing Dineros asked the court to issue a subpoena against paquita to testify as a
witness summoned by the plaintiffs. The request was granted by the court. The CA
dismissed their objection and denied their MFR.
Issue: WON Paquita may testify as an adverse party witness concerning her
participation in the alleged fraud without violating section 20(b) of rule 130.

Ruling. No paquita may not testify. Evidently paquita will be asked to testify on what
actually transpired during the meeting and will be asked questions on the falsity of
the entries in the books of orporation. Whether her testimony will turn out to be
adverse or beneficial to her own interest, the inevitable result would be to pit her
against her husband. Testimony adverse to the wife's own interests would tend to show
the existence of collusive fraud between the spouses and would then work havoc upon
their common defense that the loan was not fictitious. There is the possibility, too, that
the wife, in order to soften her own guilt, if guilty she is, may unwittingly testify in a
manner entirely disparaging to the interests of the husband. Those jurisdictions which
allow one spouse to be examined by the adverse party as hostile witness, the interest of
the spouses are separate or the spouse offered as a witness is merely a formal or
nominal party. , the "true explanation [which] is after all the simplest" 8 and which
constitutes "the real and sole strength of the opposition to abolishing the privilege," is
the natural repugnance in every fair-minded person to compelling a wife or husband to
be the means of the other's condemnation and to subjecting the culprit to the
humiliation of being condemned by the words of his intimate life partner.

Number 75
Facts: Ching po was found guilty of the crime charged against him that he was the
owner of and had in his possession and under his control 18 grams of opium, a
prohibited drug, without being lawfully authorized so to do. His assignment of error
was that the trial court erred in receiving as evidence against him the testimony
givern by him upom a trial in a certain case where he was charged for having vising
and being in a house where opium was kept. In the said case Ching Po was
acquitted while testifying that he was the owner of the opium found and that he was
a lessee, wherein criminal case no. 7949 is separate and distinct from the present
case.
Issue: WON the testimony of the Defendant against himself is admissible.
Ruling: Yes. The undersigned attorney in criminal case 7949 advised ching po to
testify that he was a lessee of the house where the opium was found and that it
belonged to him, in effect freeing him from that charge. We have therefore the
express admission of the defendant in open court that he as the owner of the opium
in the present case. With reference to the admissibility of the admissions and
declarations of the defendant charged with a crime made by a defendant or by a
third party by his authority if relevant are admissible against him. . If the defendant has
made the statements constituting an admission of the facts charged in the complaint they are
admissible against him. The foregoing rule is based upon the presumption that no man would
declare anything against himself, unless such declarations were true. A man's acts, conduct, and
declarations, whereever made, provided they be voluntary, a readmissible against him, for the
reason that it is fair to presume that they correspond with the truth, and it is his fault if they do not.
The foregoing rule is based upon the presumption that no man would declare anything against
himself, unless such declarations were true. A man's acts, conduct, and declarations, whereever
made, provided they be voluntary, a readmissible against him, for the reason that it is fair to presume
that they correspond with the truth, and it is his fault if they do not.

Number 85
Facts: Juan consunji, alfonso Panganiban, and another whose identity is still
unknown, were charged with having conspired in the murder of one Jose Ramos.
During the trial, while the prosecution was questioning one of its witnesses, in
connection with the making of a certain extra judicial confession by defendant
Consunji to the witness, the counsel of Panganiban interposed an objection that
such evidence was hearsay and therefore incompetent as against the defendant
Panganiban. The court ordered for its exclusion on the ground that the prosecution
could not be permitted to introduce confessions to prove the conspiracy without
prior proof of such conspiracy.
Issue: WON the admission of the confession be excluded
Ruling: No. Section 14 of rule 123 or rules of court, the declaration of an accused
expressly acknowledging the truth of his guilt as to the offense charged may be
given in evidence against him. Under the rule of multiple admissibility, even if
Consunjis confession may not be competent as against his co-accused Panganiban,
being hearsay as to the latter, or to prove conspiracy between them, the confession
was nevertheless admissible as evidence of th declarants own guilt. The rule cited by
the Court below in support of its exclusion of the proffered evidence is Sec. 12 of Rule 123, providing
that: The act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence may
be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than
such act or declaration. The statement must be made during the its existence.