Case Digest (G.R. No. 5449)
Facts:
Mariano Gonzalez et al. v. Alejandro Rojas, G.R. No. 5449, March 22, 1910, the Supreme Court En Banc, Arellano, C.J., writing for the Court.
The petitioners (Mariano Gonzalez, suing for himself and as representative of his siblings Juan, Silvestra, Cipriana, and Candida) sought registration of a parcel of land used as a fishery or vivarium in Pitas, barrio of Taliptip, Bulacan, described in their application as containing 16 hectares, 10 ares, 95 centares, and 25 square decimeters, appraised at $1,650 (U.S. currency). Alejandro Rojas opposed the registration, claiming ownership of the same fishery.
The parties admitted several facts: the fishery had belonged to sisters Juliana Samonte and Atanasia Samonte, heirs of their grandfather Jose Samonte; the sisters, while coowners, leased the fishery to Mamerto Siaoson on March 21, 1895 for a twelve-year term (thus until March 21, 1907); both sisters obtained titles by composition on March 26, 1895; Juliana died leaving four children (Brigido, Matias, Natalia, Felisa Villanueva y Samonte) and Atanasia left three children (Eugenio, Margarita, Leon Reyes y Samonte).
The petitioners alleged they acquired the entire fishery by purchases from Juliana’s and Atanasia’s heirs and submitted public instruments showing conveyances dated July 23 and July 31, 1902; October 25, 1902; and May 11, 1903. Rojas submitted two private contracts as evidence of his competing purchases: (1) a Tagalog private instrument allegedly executed by Juliana and her husband Felix Villanueva on February 24 (referred to elsewhere in the record as February 2), 1900, selling Juliana’s half to Rojas and his wife Faustina Meneses for 1,100 pesos (respondent’s Exhibit No. 1), and (2) another Tagalog private document purporting to show a sale by Eugenio and Leon Reyes (respondent’s Exhibit No. 3), which the Court later treated as of no probative value.
Rojas also presented Juliana’s title (Exhibit No. 2) and a petition to the municipal president (Exhibit No. 5) plus the municipal proceedings (Exhibit No. 4) containing testimony ratifying Exhibit No. 1. Witnesses, including Felix Villanueva and three named witnesses, testified to the execution and payment under Exhibit No. 1. Atanasia’s composition instrument appeared as respondent’s Exhibit No. 6 without explanation.
The Court of Land Registration (trial court) adjudged that the portion of the fishery derived from Juliana Samonte should not be registered to the petitioners (denying their registration with respect to Juliana’s half) but adjudged and ordered registration of the other half (Atanasia’s half) in favor of the petitioners as coowners. The petitioners appealed the denial as to Juliana’s half; Rojas did not appeal the adjudication of the other half, which therefore became final and left Rojas’s claim to that half abandoned.
The petitioners assigned errors: admission of respondent’s Exhibit No. 1 and parts of Exhibit No. 4; failure to declare Exhibit No. 1 false; alleged misapplication of Article 1473, Civil Code (priority rule for real property sales when sold to different purchasers); and wrongful denial of registration of Juliana’s half. The trial judge found Exhibit No. 1 authentic but ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- In a dispute where the same real property was the subject of competing sales, did the private unregistered sale in favor of Alejandro Rojas divest Juliana Samonte’s heirs and bar the subsequent sale and registration in favor of the petitioners under Article 1473, Civil Code?
- Was the sale by Juliana Samonte to Alejandro Rojas (Exhibit No. 1) consummated so as to transfer ownership prior to her death, or did the absence of delivery/possession mean the property remained part of her estate such that the heirs’ sale to the petition...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)