Case Digest (G.R. No. 21943)
Facts:
The case G.R. No. L-21943 involves Askay, the plaintiff and appellant, an illiterate Igorrote aged between 70 and 80 years, residing in Tublay, Benguet. Askay had previously owned mining properties, including the Pet Kel Mineral Claim, which he acquired around 1907. The defendant, Fernando A. Cosalan, is Askay's nephew by marriage and the municipal president of Tublay, who also had interests in mining ventures. On November 23, 1914, Askay allegedly sold the Pet Kel Mineral Claim to Cosalan, as per the defendant's Exhibit 1. However, in 1923, Askay initiated legal proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Benguet, seeking to have the sale declared null, regain possession of the mineral claim, and claim damages amounting to P10,500. The trial was presided over by Judge George R. Harvey, who ultimately dismissed the complaint, ruling in favor of Cosalan and imposing costs on Askay. Following this judgment, Askay raised two grounds for appeal: one concerning the juris...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 21943)
Facts:
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.
Property in Dispute:
- The Pet Kel Mineral Claim located in Tublay, Benguet, which Askay obtained title to in 1907.
Alleged Sale:
- On November 23, 1914, Askay allegedly sold the Pet Kel Mineral Claim to Cosalan, as evidenced by defendant’s Exhibit 1.
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.
- In 1923, Askay filed a case in the Court of First Instance of Benguet to:
Trial Court Decision:
- Judge George R. Harvey dismissed the complaint and absolved Cosalan of liability, with costs against Askay.
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.
- Askay appealed the decision, raising two issues:
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.
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.
Defendant’s Evidence:
- Fingerprint experts confirmed the thumb mark belonged to Askay.
- Multiple witnesses testified that Askay admitted selling the mine to Cosalan.
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:
Jurisdictional Issue:
- Did Judge George R. Harvey have jurisdiction to hear the case?
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:
- Judge Harvey had jurisdiction to hear the case.
- Askay failed to prove fraud or deceit in the sale of the Pet Kel Mineral Claim.
- The complaint was properly dismissed, and costs were imposed on Askay.
Ratio:
- (Unlock)