Title
Askay vs. Cosalan
Case
G.R. No. 21943
Decision Date
Sep 15, 1924
An illiterate Igorrote, Askay, alleged fraud in the sale of his mining claim to nephew Cosalan, but the court upheld the sale, citing lack of proof and delay in filing.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 21943)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Plaintiff: Askay, an illiterate Igorrote between 70 and 80 years old, residing in Tublay, Benguet, and a former owner of mining property.
    • Defendant: Fernando A. Cosalan, Askay’s nephew by marriage, municipal president of Tublay, and also involved in mining enterprises.
  2. Property in Dispute:

    • The Pet Kel Mineral Claim located in Tublay, Benguet, which Askay obtained title to in 1907.
  3. Alleged Sale:

    • On November 23, 1914, Askay allegedly sold the Pet Kel Mineral Claim to Cosalan, as evidenced by defendant’s Exhibit 1.
  4. Legal Action:

    • In 1923, Askay filed a case in the Court of First Instance of Benguet to:
      • Declare the sale null and void.
      • Regain possession of the mineral claim.
      • Claim damages amounting to P10,500.
  5. Trial Court Decision:

    • Judge George R. Harvey dismissed the complaint and absolved Cosalan of liability, with costs against Askay.
  6. Appeal:

    • Askay appealed the decision, raising two issues:
      • Jurisdictional: Whether Judge Harvey had authority to hear the case.
      • Substantive: Whether Askay proved his claim of fraud and deceit.
  7. Jurisdictional Issue:

    • Judge Harvey was authorized by the Secretary of Justice to hold a special term of court in Baguio under Administrative Order No. 43.
    • Askay argued that Act No. 3107, which allowed judges to be detailed to other districts, was not yet in effect when Judge Harvey heard the case.
  8. Fraud Allegation:

    • Askay claimed the sale was fraudulent due to his illiteracy and the gross inadequacy of the consideration (P107, a billfold, a sheet, a cow, and two carabaos).
    • The deed of sale was executed before a notary public and witnesses, who testified that the document was interpreted to Askay before he affixed his thumb mark.
  9. Defendant’s Evidence:

    • Fingerprint experts confirmed the thumb mark belonged to Askay.
    • Multiple witnesses testified that Askay admitted selling the mine to Cosalan.
  10. Delay in Filing:

    • Askay waited nine years before filing the case, during which Cosalan developed the mine and leased it to a third party.

Issue:

  1. Jurisdictional Issue:

    • Did Judge George R. Harvey have jurisdiction to hear the case?
  2. Substantive Issue:

    • Did Askay prove by a preponderance of evidence that the sale of the Pet Kel Mineral Claim was fraudulent?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that:

  1. Judge Harvey had jurisdiction to hear the case.
  2. Askay failed to prove fraud or deceit in the sale of the Pet Kel Mineral Claim.
  3. The complaint was properly dismissed, and costs were imposed on Askay.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.