Case Digest (G.R. No. 8160)
Facts:
Marcos De La Cruz v. Ramon Fabie et al., G.R. No. 8160, October 27, 1916, the Supreme Court En Banc, Arellano, C.J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff-appellee, Marcos de la Cruz, sued as administrator of the estate of Gregoria Hernandez. The defendants-appellants included Ramon Fabie (purchaser) and earlier proceedings had involved Vedasto Velazquez (attorney‑in‑fact accused of forgery) and the Insular Treasurer (assurance fund). A prior action (case No. 5858) arising from the same facts resulted in a demurrer sustained by the Court of First Instance and that judgment was affirmed by this Court on appeal; the demurrer disposition is part of the history of the dispute.
On January 18, 1904, certificate of title No. 121 was issued in favor of Gregoria Hernandez. Velazquez, her attorney‑in‑fact and custodian of her title papers, procured a forged deed (Exhibit A) and caused the register of deeds to cancel Hernandez’s entry and issue certificate No. 43 in his name. On November 7, 1904, Velazquez purportedly sold the land to Ramon Fabie under a pacto de retro (Exhibit C) that by its terms would convert to an absolute sale after one year; Fabie registered that instrument the same day. The redemption period expired on November 7, 1905, and on May 31, 1907, a final deed (Exhibit D) was presented and certificate No. 766 issued to Fabie. Hernandez filed a suit to annul the forged deed on September 26, 1906 (judgment cancelling the instrument is said to have been rendered December 31, 1907), and notice of lis pendens was filed with the register on May 8, 1907.
After the earlier indemnity action against the Insular Treasurer failed (demurrer sustained and dismissal affirmed), De la Cruz filed a new complaint on October 31, 1911 against Fabie and the register of deeds seeking: annulment of Exhibit D; cancellation of the registrations and certificates (A, C, D and certificates Nos. 43 and 766); restoration of possession; and damages and rental recovery. The Court of First Instance (Judge Charles S. Lobingier) granted all prayers of the complaint except damages and rentals. On appeal to the Supreme Court (Rule 45), the Court reviewed the pleadings, the s...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the trial court cancel the registrations (documents A, C, D and certificates Nos. 43 and 766) and adjudicate possession to the plaintiff where the defendant Fabie is a registered purchaser who, by operation of his pacto de retro, acquired an absolute title and is asserted to be an innocent purchaser for value?
- Is the plaintiff entitled to damages and rental recovery?
- Were costs prop...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)