GREGORIO ESTRADA v.

PROCULO NOBLE
[CA] 49 O.G. 139
G.R.
G.R. No.
No. L-2726.
L-2726. September
September 29,
29, 1950
1950
Rule
Rule 130,
130, Sec.
Sec. 47
47

Thea Jane Merin

FACTS:
• Proculo Noble received from his father, Maximo Noble, a land through a public deed of
sale after payment of certain amount. The sale was subject to a condition wherein the
vendor, his heirs and assigns shall have the right to repurchase the said land in a
specific time.
• Proculo alleged that the sale entered into was an absolute sale of land and it was only
named as a sale with right to repurchase to prohibit him from disposing the property.
After some time, Maximo Noble sell the said land to Gregorio Estrada.

• A case arises between Noble and Estrada. Trial court ruled in favor of Estrada and
ordered defendant to execute a deed of resale in favor of Estrada which plaintiff offered
for repurchase and in case defendant refuses to execute a deed of resale. The appellant
questions the decision rendered by the Court as it the amount to be paid for the resale
of the land does not commensurate to the amount paid by the defendant at the time he
bought the property.
• Proculo contends that the CFI committed an error in applying the Ballatine scale of
values.
ISSUE:
• Whether or not the lower courts erred
in applying the Ballatine scale.
RULING:
• CA said that this conversion table was submitted by DR. Ballantine to the President in his capacity as economic adviser. It
contained a recommendation for the adoption of measures which were greatly needed to solve the problem created by
transaction made during the Japanese occupation and to hasten the economic recovery of the country. The table was embodied
in a bill which the President sent to Congress for enactment. The SC, CA and the different CFI in the country have repeatedly
applied it provisions in numerous cases. It is, therefore, an official document whose publication constituted a leading event of
general interest and whose provisions are widely known and have played an important part in the contemporary political history
of the country, of which courts of justice could take judicial cognizance. And there can be no doubt of the propriety of the CFI’s
action in applying the table to the transaction at bar. No evidence of the rate of exchange between Japanese occupation
currency and Philippine currency at the time said transaction took place having been presented, the case is one which calls for
the application of said conversion table.
 
• The CA also said that the computation of the CFI was correct. It may be gleaned from the terms of the deed (between Maximino
and Proculo) that the sum of P180 and P2,420, Japanese occupation currency, were paid to Maximino (the P180 paid in the
month of July 1944 and P2,420 paid subsequent to that date but prior to the liberation of Camarines Sur. Proculo, therefore, is
entitled to the equivalent in Philippine currency of the P180, Japanese occupation currency, in the month of July 1944, and as to
the amount of P2,420, Japanese occupation currency, at least, to its equivalent in the month of December 1944.

• Learned treatises are admissible in evidence if (a) the court takes judicial notice thereof, or (b) the same are testified to by a
witness expert in the subject. The CA took judicial notice of the Ballantyne Scale of Values.
Thank you so much. 