G.R. No. 10318 - Barretto vs. Cabreza

Antonio M.A. Barretto (plaintiff/appellant) initiated a suit by bill of exceptions after the Court of First Instance of Laguna rendered a judgment on November 30, 1913, absolving the defendants from the complaint.
The case arose from a dispute over a tract of coconut land situated in the barrio of Alipit, Santa Cruz, Laguna.
The land, measuring 4 hectares, 82 ares, and 71 centiares, became the subject of conflicting claims between Barretto and the defendants.

On August 28, 1912, Barretto filed his written complaint, which was later amended twice.
By a writ of execution issued in case No. 7757 from the Court of First Instance of Manila (in a separate suit involving Barretto and other defendants), the provincial sheriff of Laguna attached four parcels of land owned by the judgment debtor, Vicenta Limjuco.
The land in dispute was attached on October 12, 1910, and subsequently sold at public auction on October 31, 1910, where Barretto purchased the property for P677.67.
After the lapse of a one-year redemption period, on February 19, 1912, the sheriff issued the certificate of title in favor of Barretto, with the final registration in the property registry recorded on March 23, 1912.

Barretto claimed ownership as the purchaser at public auction of property belonging to his debtor, Vicenta Limjuco.
Defendants Tomas Cabreza and Ponciano Llamas contended that they were the rightful owners, alleging that they had purchased the property from Vicenta Limjuco on January 3, 1910, as evidenced by a deed of sale (Exhibit 2).
It was further asserted by the defendants that the titles on which they based their claim were simulated, fictitious, and therefore null and void.

Exhibit C proved the auction sale to Barretto.
Exhibit B and D evidenced the issuance of the certificate of title.
Exhibit H and the testimony of a registry employee supported the registration of the land in Barretto’s name.
Exhibits 1, 2, and 4, along with testimony from various witnesses (including Petrona Lim and Mauricio Capistrano), presented an alternative chain of title suggesting earlier transfers and sales by Vicenta Limjuco.

A significant point of controversy was the deed of sale (Exhibit 2) executed on January 3, 1910, which contained discrepancies when compared with its copy (Exhibit J) on file with the Court of First Instance of Laguna.
The irregularities in these documents raised questions regarding the authenticity and proper execution of the notarial instruments, particularly in light of provisions in the Civil Code (Articles 1223 and 1227) and the Notarial Law (Articles 22 and 28).

The deed of sale (Exhibit 2) was executed before notary T. Kalambakal, whose conduct was suspect—marked by inaccuracies such as:

Discrepancies between the original exhibit and its official copy.
Unexplained alterations, such as the crossing out of a name and lack of proper attestation in the copy.

The notary had familial relationships with parties involved, raising issues under the Notarial Law concerning conflict of interest and competence.
Despite these irregularities, the document was only presented by the defendants on July 28, 1913, which impacted its evidentiary effect regarding the timing of the attachment (October 12, 1910).

Whether Vicenta Limjuco, the judgment debtor, was the rightful owner of the land when it was attached on October 12, 1910.
Whether any purported sale prior to the attachment (as alleged by the defendants) effectively transferred ownership.

Whether the execution sale, whereby Barretto acquired the land at public auction on October 31, 1910, is legal and valid, given the discrepancies in the defendants’ documents.
Whether the defects in the notarial instruments (specifically Exhibit 2) affected the rights of the purchaser, considering the legal period for redemption had lapsed and the sale had been duly recorded.

Whether the alleged simulated or fictitious nature of the deed of sale (Exhibit 2) could adversely affect Barretto’s rights to the land.
The impact of the separate chain of transactions and conflicting testimonies regarding the sale of the property from Vicenta Limjuco to various parties.