Case Digest (G.R. No. 9188)
Facts:
In Gutierrez Hermanos vs. Engracio Orense, G.R. No. 9188, decided December 4, 1914, the plaintiff‐appellee, Gutierrez Hermanos, instituted an action on March 5, 1913, in the Court of First Instance of Albay against Engracio Orense, the defendant‐appellant. The complaint, later amended, alleged that on February 14, 1907, Jose Duran, a nephew of Orense, executed before a notary a deed of sale in favor of Gutierrez Hermanos for ₱1,500, with a four‐year right of repurchase. The parcel of land, with improvements, was still registered in Orense’s name under new‐registry Certificate No. 5. The plaintiff’s occupation was delayed by a lease to Duran lasting until February 14, 1911. On March 14, 1912, Orense verbally confirmed and ratified the sale in open court. Despite repeated demands to execute the formal conveyance, Orense refused, prompting the plaintiff to seek a court order compelling him to transfer all his rights, plus payment of ₱30 per month from February 14, 1911, or, alternaCase Digest (G.R. No. 9188)
Facts:
- Parties and Procedural History
- Gutierrez Hermanos (plaintiff-appellee) filed suit on March 5, 1913, in the Court of First Instance of Albay against Engracio Orense (defendant-appellant).
- Complaint, later amended, alleged Orense owned a parcel of land with improvements in Guinobatan, Albay, which was registered in his name (Certificate No. 5).
- On February 14, 1907, Jose Duran (Orense’s nephew), with Orense’s knowledge and consent, executed a notarial "sale with right of redemption" to Gutierrez Hermanos for ₱1,500, reserving a four-year repurchase right.
- Plaintiff did not take possession immediately; property remained occupied by Orense and Duran under a lease to Duran, effective until February 14, 1911.
- On March 14, 1912, Orense verbally confirmed and ratified Duran’s sale instrument before the court.
- Dispute and Relief Sought
- After Duran’s redemption period lapsed (Feb. 14, 1911), Orense refused to execute a formal conveyance to plaintiff or to pay ₱30/month rent, despite demands.
- Plaintiff prayed for:
- An order compelling Orense to execute a public deed transferring all his rights to the land.
- Payment of ₱30 monthly rental from Feb. 14, 1911, until restitution.
- In the alternative, ₱3,000 as damages for loss of property value, plus interest, costs, and expenses.
- Orense demurred (overruled) and filed a general denial and two special defenses:
- The facts did not constitute a cause of action.
- His registered title was conclusive; Duran lacked written authority to sell; plaintiff could not have relied in good faith.
- Trial and Prior Criminal Proceeding
- Parallel estafa charge against Duran for purporting to sell property he did not own; at that trial Orense, as a witness, testified he had consented to the sale, leading to Duran’s acquittal.
- Upon Orense’s sworn admission, plaintiff pursued its civil remedies to enforce conveyance and collect rent.
- The trial court rendered judgment (April 14, 1913) compelling Orense to convey, awarding ₱780 damages, and costs. Orense appealed via bill of exceptions.
Issues:
- Whether the sale executed by Duran without written authorization was valid or void under Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure provisions requiring written power.
- Whether Orense’s subsequent verbal ratification and sworn admissions cured any initial defect, rendering the sale valid and binding upon him.
- Whether plaintiff is entitled to specific performance (conveyance) and recovery of rent or, alternatively, damages for loss of property value.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)