Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4133)
Facts:
Agustina de Guzman Vda. de Carrillo (deceased) substituted by Prima Carrillo v. Francisca Salak de Paz, et als., G.R. No. L-4133, May 13, 1952, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff sued in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac seeking reconveyance of one-half of Lot No. 221 (originally owned by the spouses Severino Salak and Petra Garcia), cancellation of a lease on that lot in favor of spouses Gabino de Leon and Asuncion Reyes, cancellation of a mortgage executed by the lessees in favor of the Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, and payment of damages. The title covering the lot was Original Certificate of Title No. 41453 in Tarlac.
The complaint alleged that on December 20, 1939, the spouses Severino Salak and Petra Garcia mortgaged the lot for P1,200 to spouses Pedro Magat and Filomena Silva; the mortgage was later assigned to Honoria Salak for P1,632 with Severino's consent. On August 16, 1943, Severino purportedly transferred his one-half interest in the property to Honoria for P612 (representing half of what Honoria paid the mortgagees). Neither the assignment of mortgage nor the transfer was registered in the Register of Deeds nor annotated on Certificate of Title No. 41453. Severino died December 5, 1944; Honoria died January 13, 1945, leaving Agustina de Guzman as sole heir.
Intestate proceedings (Special Proceeding No. 3, Intestado de los finados Severino Salak y Petra Garcia) were instituted; after those proceedings Lot No. 221 was adjudicated in equal one-quarter shares to Ernesto Bautista, Aurea Sahagun, Rita Sahagun and Francisca Salak. Subsequently Francisca Salak acquired the shares of the other heirs and a Transfer Certificate of Title No. 970 was issued in her name.
Defendants moved to dismiss (motions dated November 16 and 27, 1948). The Court of First Instance granted the motions and dismissed the complaint with costs, reasoning that the action would amount to a collateral attack upon the closed intestate proceedings, that the property had been adjudicated free of claims after the estate proceedings (per the Rules of Court), and that the plaintiff should have presented any claim during those intestate proceedings; the court found no privity between plaintif...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the lower court err in dismissing the complaint as a collateral attack on the intestate proceedings and for failure to present the claim during those proceedings?
- Is the unregistered transfer of Severino Salak’s one-half interest (and the assignment of the mortgage) ineffective so that the plaintiff’s remedy was limited to a personal or monetary obligation rather than a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)