Case Digest (G.R. No. 984)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 984)
Facts:
Isidora Bermejo v. Magdaleno Dorado, G.R. No. 984. June 23, 1905, the Supreme Court, Willard, J., writing for the Court (Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concurring; Mapa, J., did not sit).
Plaintiff and appellee Isidora Bermejo (joined in the original acquisition by her husband, Palmo Davidas, since deceased) alleged ownership and sought possession of a tract of land described in a public deed dated September 1, 1887, by which Narciso Bermejo conveyed the land to plaintiff and her husband; the grantees thereafter took possession. The case presented only a possessory controversy, not a determination of title.
During the period of possession the plaintiff and her husband made a verbal agreement with defendant and his wife, Alejandra Bermejo (since deceased), under which the plaintiffs transferred possession of the land and certain carabaos to defendant and his wife for their support, with the understanding that the land and carabaos would be returned to the plaintiffs whenever the latter required them. The court below found that the defendant and his wife entered into possession under that arrangement.
The defendant and appellant Magdaleno Dorado relied on several instruments to support his claim: (1) a private document executed by Victoriano Bermejo and his brothers (dated two years after the 1887 deed) purporting to convey the land to defendant's wife on inheritance-from-mother grounds, and (2) a public document dated 1898, executed by Rafaela Posadas (the mother of defendant’s wife and executed after the wife’s death), purporting to convey the tract to the defendant and stating title derived from her daughter. The trial court found no evidence that Victoriano, his brothers, or Clotilde Base (the alleged ancestor) had ever been in possession of or had any interest in the property. The court also found that, so far as the evidence showed, the only right Alejandra had in the property stemmed from the verbal possession agreement and was therefore a mere possessory right terminable when the plaintiffs asserted their claim. Rafaela appeared and testified that she never executed the 1898 document; the trial court made no definitive finding on the instrument’s genuineness but regarded such finding unnecessary in light of other determinations.
The defendant additionally argued that the 1887 public deed to the plaintiffs could not be received against him because he was a third person under various articles of the Mortgage Law; the trial court, however, found the 1887 deed duly recorded. The defendant further contended that the land described in the 1898 document was not the same as that in the 1887 deed; the complaint had attached the 1887 deed but the defendant did not attach the 1898 deed to his answer and failed to prove that the Rafaela deed covered the same land. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff. No motion for new trial was filed in the court below. The Supreme Court reviewed the record on appeal and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Issues:
- May this Court review the trial court’s evidence and factual findings absent a motion for a new trial?
- Do the facts found by the trial court—recorded 1887 conveyance to the plaintiffs, actual possession by them, and the verbal transfer of mere possession to defendant and his wife—sustain judgment for the plaintiff in a possessory action?
- Do the instruments relied on by the defendant (the private document by Victoriano and the 1898 public deed by Rafaela Posadas) convey an interest superior to the plaintiffs’ possessory right?
- Can the defendant successfully attack the admissibility or effect of the plaintiffs’ 1887 recorded deed as a third party under the Mortgage Law?
- Does any discrepancy in the descriptions of the tracts in the respective deeds defeat the defendant’s allegation that the deed he relied upon conveyed the land in question?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)