Facts:

The case of Eugenio Jacinto et al. vs. Celerino B. Arellano et al. revolves around a dispute over the ownership of two lots, specifically lots Nos. 43 and 44, block 2913, which were part of cadastral proceeding No. 62, record No. 302. The plaintiffs, Eugenio Jacinto and others, filed a complaint against the defendants, Celerino B. Arellano, Maria Monasterio, and Anita Gardiner, alleging that the defendants fraudulently obtained title to the aforementioned lots. The complaint sought a judgment that would declare the defendants liable for the sum of P8,000, representing the price of the lots, an additional P2,000 for the value of the buildings on the property, and P5,000 in damages, along with costs. The case was heard in the Court of First Instance of Manila, where the trial court ultimately absolved Maria Monasterio and Anita Gardiner from the complaint, leading to the appeal by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs contended that the sale executed by Arellano to Monasterio and Gard...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Plaintiffs/Appellants: Eugenio Jacinto et al.
   • Defendants/Appellees: Celerino B. Arellano, Maria Monasterio, Anita Gardiner, and Agustin Monasterio.

2. Subject Matter:

   • The case involves lots Nos. 43 and 44, Block 2913, of Cadastral Proceeding No. 62, Record No. 302.
   • Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants fraudulently obtained title to the said lots.

3. Plaintiffs' Allegations:

   • Plaintiffs prayed for judgment against the defendants, alleging that they fraudulently acquired the lots.
   • They sought payment of P8,000 as the price of the lots, P2,000 as the value of the buildings thereon, and P5,000 as damages.

4. Defendants' Position:

   • Maria Monasterio and Anita Gardiner claimed they purchased the lots in good faith, believing Celerino B. Arellano to be the true owner, as he appeared in the records.

5. Trial Court's Decision:

   • The Court of First Instance of Manila absolved Maria Monasterio, Anita Gardiner, and Agustin Monasterio from the complaint.
   • The court found no evidence of fraud on their part and upheld their good faith in purchasing the lots.

6. Errors Assigned by Plaintiffs:

   • The trial court erred in finding that the sale to Maria Monasterio and Anita Gardiner was not fraudulent.
   • The court erred in finding that Maria Monasterio and Anita Gardiner were not parties to the fraud.
   • The court erred in finding that the defendants did not know the lots belonged to the plaintiffs.
   • The court erred in finding that the land was worth only P3,090.
   • The court erred in denying the motion for a new trial.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Good Faith Presumption:

   • Good faith is always presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The plaintiffs failed to prove that Maria Monasterio and Anita Gardiner acted in bad faith or with knowledge of any fraud.

2. Burden of Proof:

   • The burden of proving fraud lies with the party alleging it. The plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of good faith on the part of the purchasers.

3. Value of Property:

   • The trial court's determination of the value of the land and improvements was supported by the evidence and was not overturned by the Supreme Court.

4. Finality of Judgment:

   • The denial of the motion for a new trial was proper, as the issues raised were already addressed in the trial court's decision.