Facts:

This case involves a legal dispute between Tomas Amancio as the plaintiff and Jorge Pardo and Isaac Andrada, the provincial sheriff of Capiz, as defendants. The events leading to the case transpired in Capiz, with Tomas Amancio filing a complaint on November 30, 1907, against the defendants. In his complaint, Amancio claimed ownership of a building lot located on Calle Rizal, which he had possessed for a long time and had continuously paid taxes on. However, on October 14, 1908, Sheriff Andrada, at Pardo's request, attached the lot, intending to sell it at public auction as property belonging to Alvaro Alcantara, who owed Pardo P697.50. Amancio claimed that he was not notified of the attachment and protested that the lot did not belong to Alcantara.

Despite his protest, the sheriff maintained the attachment, and the lot was sold at auction on November 28, 1908, for P824, significantly below its market value of P1,200. Amancio sought to recover the lot, the rent he lost durin

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Tomas Amancio, the plaintiff and appellant, initiated the suit against Jorge Pardo and Isaac Andrada (the latter being the provincial sheriff of Capiz) asserting his title over a building lot in Calle Rizal, Capiz.
• The lot’s location, area, and boundaries were detailed in his written complaint filed on November 30, 1907 [1908].

Alleged Ownership and Possession

• Tomas Amancio claimed uninterrupted possession of the lot, supported by his consistent payment of taxes and collection of rental income (P75 annually from leased Chinamen).
• He produced documentary evidence, including five receipts evidencing rent collection, and two instruments:

- A notarial instrument showing the sale of the lot by Estanislao Alvarez to Ramon Amancio on November 29, 1889 (Exhibit B). - A private instrument dated December 2, 1898, wherein Ramon Amancio purportedly sold the lot to his father, Tomas Amancio (Exhibit A).

Attachment and Sale of the Lot

• On October 14, 1908, the sheriff, acting at the request of Jorge Pardo, attached the lot without prior notice to Tomas Amancio.
• The attachment was made to secure a writ of execution issued in favor of Pardo against Alvaro Alcantara for a debt of P697.50 along with legal interest.
• Despite Amancio’s plea—via a written petition to the sheriff—requesting the release of the lot on grounds of his ownership, Pardo insisted on maintaining the attachment and proceeding with the sale.
• The lot was subsequently sold at a public auction on November 28, 1908, for P824, a figure significantly lower than its estimated value of at least P1,200, causing Tomas Amancio to claim a loss of P800.

Pleadings and Amendments

• The plaintiff later moved to amend his petition, seeking judgment in his favor for:

- An indemnity reflecting the value of the lot already sold. - Compensation for other losses and damages, as well as the trial costs.

Evidence Presented by Parties

• Plaintiff’s Evidence:

- The chain of title instruments (Exhibits A and B) aiming to establish his ownership. - Rent collection receipts to support his claim of possession and beneficial use of the property. - A notarized will executed by Tomas Amancio on November 3, 1898, before Notary Public Jose Maria Garcia, which was presented to demonstrate that the lot had been transferred to his son-in-law, Alvaro Alcantara. - The will contained specific clauses indicating that:

Trial Court Decision

• The lower court, after evaluating the evidence, rendered judgment on October 4, 1909, disallowing Tomas Amancio’s complaint.
• It held that:

- The lot was legitimately attached and sold under the authority of the writ of execution. - The evidence, particularly the public notarial will, established that the lot belonged to Alvaro Alcantara, not the plaintiff.

Central Issue for Resolution on Appeal

• The pivotal question was to determine the true owner of the disputed lot as of October 14, 1908:

- Was the lot rightfully owned by Tomas Amancio, as he alleged? - Or did ownership belong to his son-in-law, Alvaro Alcantara, as evidenced by the notarial will and the corresponding public document?

Issue:

Ownership of the Disputed Lot

• Whether Tomas Amancio maintained valid title and ownership of the lot despite the attachment.
• Whether the evidentiary chain of private documents (showing purported transfers of ownership) could prevail against a public instrument—the notarized will.

Validity and Effect of the Notarized Will

• Whether the will executed by Tomas Amancio on November 3, 1898, met the formalities and possessed the public character required.
• Whether the will, as a public document, served as convincing evidence of the transfer of ownership to Alvaro Alcantara.

Legality of the Attachment and Sale Process

• Whether the sheriff acted within legal bounds in attaching and selling the lot under the writ execution in favor of Jorge Pardo.
• Whether the defendant’s actions in providing the bond and proceeding with the sale conformed to the due process afforded by law.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)