Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3535)
Facts:
Rafael Enriquez et al. v. Francisco Enriquez et al., G.R. No. 3535, September 20, 1907, the Supreme Court, Willard, J., writing for the Court (Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.).
The plaintiffs (including Rafael Enriquez, as administrator of the estates of Antonio Enriquez and Ciriaca Villanueva, and other heirs) sued on December 10, 1901 to have two deeds declared fraudulent and void: a deed dated March 12, 1884 executed by Francisco Enriquez as attorney‑in‑fact for his father Antonio Enriquez conveying certain tenement houses to Victoriano Reyes, and a deed of April 5, 1884 by Victoriano Reyes conveying the same property to defendant Carmen de la Cavada (wife of Francisco). At trial the court declared the deeds void and awarded plaintiffs rents and profits exceeding 21,000 pesos; Francisco Enriquez and Carmen de la Cavada appealed (a prior appeal in this controversy appears in 3 Phil. Rep., 746).
Relevant background: the property had been acquired by Antonio Enriquez in 1881 during his marriage to Ciriaca Villanueva; plaintiffs claimed one half belonged to the conjugal partnership and upon Ciriaca's death passed to her heirs, so that at the time of the 1884 conveyances only an undivided half could legally have been sold. On March 5, 1883 Antonio executed a general power of attorney in favor of his son Francisco, who executed the March 12, 1884 deed to Reyes for 2,500 pesos; Reyes’ deed to Carmen recited the same consideration.
The defendants introduced evidence indicating no cash changed hands and that the property was worth only about 2,500 pesos in 1884 (including proof of an 1880 public auction sale for 1,367 pesos, afterwards conveyed to Antonio Enriquez). The plaintiffs produced no evidence of the higher alleged value and did not pursue in this record the question resolved in a related case (Naval v. Enriquez, 3 Phil. Rep., 669).
Critically, the record contained minutes of family/accounting meetings and a formal public document executed November 3 and November 20, 1897, respectively, in which the heirs (including Rafael and Antonio Enriquez) agreed to examine and approve Francisco’s accounts as executor and administrator, approved an inventory “in accordance with the terms of the aforesaid draft,” and expressly excluded the Calle Barraca (Riberita) tenement houses from the estate inventory while entering the 2,500‑peso sale price in the debit column of the administration accounts pending voucher proof. The November 20, 1897 public document condensed and expressly approved the executor’s accounts and listed as assets the amounts collected by Francisco and the 2,500 pesos sale price; the disputed property was not included in the inventory. Rafael and Antonio signed these instruments for themselves and in representation of other heirs.
At ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the instruments of November 3 and November 20, 1897 constitute a binding settlement that barred the plaintiffs' action to set aside the 1884 conveyances?
- If the 1894–1884 conveyances were challenged as fraudulent or beyond Francisco’s authority, were they void such that plaintiffs could still maintain their action notwiths...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)