Case Digest (G.R. No. 12794)
Facts:
Eladio Alpuerto v. Jose Perez Pastor and Manuel Roa, G.R. No. 12794. October 14, 1918, the Supreme Court, Street, J., writing for the Court. The opinion records that Torres, Johnson, Carson, and Avancena, JJ., concurred; Fisher, J., dissented with Malcolm, J., concurring in the dissent.The dispute concerns three parcels formerly owned by Juan Llenos. The plaintiff-appellee, Eladio Alpuerto, claimed title by virtue of a purported contract of sale with pacto de retro (Exhibit A) dated July 3, 1912, by which he alleged he paid P2,500 (P2,000 cash and P500 as satisfaction of a debt) and acquired possession. The instrument bore signatures of Llenos and Alpuerto and two attesting witnesses, but it was not acknowledged before a notary public until December 3, 1914. The properties were assessed at P5,000–P6,000 and valued at more than twice the consideration Alpuerto reported paying.
Before and after the alleged sale, an action was pending in the Court of First Instance of Cebu in which Jose Perez Pastor sued Llenos for a large money judgment; Alpuerto, as Llenos’s son‑in‑law, knew of the litigation. On January 27, 1913 a judgment was rendered in favor of Pastor for P3,789.13 (later affirmed by the Supreme Court on November 20, 1914). An execution issued April 12, 1915 was levied on the subject property as Llenos’s; despite Alpuerto’s claim to the sheriff, Manuel Roa sold the property at public sale to Pastor for P1,100 under indemnity.
Alpuerto sued for declaratory relief in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, asking declaration of ownership and annulment of the sheriff’s sale; Pastor (and sheriff Roa) counterclaimed that the sale to Alpuerto was simulated and created in fraud of creditors, praying for declaration that Pastor was the true owner and for possession. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Alp...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether a private instrument proved by attesting witnesses may be given effect as of its recited execution date against third persons, i.e., how Articles 1225 and 1227 of the Civil Code interact: does the date of Exhibit A stand as July 3, 1912, or only from its later notarial acknowledgment (December 3, 1914) for the purpose of affecting third persons?
- Whether the transfer from Juan Llenos to Alpuerto is presumed fraudulent under the second paragraph of Article 1297 of the Civil Code (transfer after a condemnatory judgment).
- Whether, regardless of presumptions, the transaction was actually fraudulent in fact...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)