Case Digest (G.R. No. 48372)
Facts:
Generosa Teves de Jakosalem v. Nicolas Rafols, G.R. No. 48372, July 24, 1942, the Supreme Court En Banc, Moran, J., writing for the Court.
The dispute concerns a parcel originally owned by Juan Melgar, who died and whose estate was placed under judicial administration beginning in 1915 (administration closed December 2, 1924). While the administration was pending, on July 5, 1917, Susana Melgar (a daughter and heir of Juan Melgar) sold the land with a right of repurchase to Pedro Cui, stipulating that during the repurchase period she would remain in possession as lessee of the purchaser.
A formal partition of the estate was made on December 12, 1920, and the land in question was adjudicated to Susana Melgar. In 1921 Susana conveyed one-half of that land as payment for professional fees to Nicolas Rafols (a defendant-appellee), who entered into possession of that half and remained in possession thereafter. On July 23, 1921, Pedro Cui filed an action to recover the half conveyed to Rafols and the other half from other defendants; while that action was pending, about August 4, 1925, Cui donated the whole property to Generosa Teves (the plaintiff-appellant).
After trial the lower court (trial court) absolved Nicolas Rafols as to the half he claimed and declared the plaintiff owner of the remaining half by acknowledgment of the other defendants. The trial court grounded Rafols’ absolution on the theory that Susana could not validly sell the land to Pedro Cui because the property was in custodia legis during the judicial administration. Generosa Teves appealed only the portion of the judgment favorable to Rafols. The appeal reached the Supreme Court by...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the sale by Susana Melgar to Pedro Cui during the judicial administration of Juan Melgar’s estate valid and enforceable as against subsequent purchasers?
- Should Nicolas Rafols be absolved and permitted to retain the one-half of the land he received from Susana, or must he surrender that half to the plaintiff?
- If Rafols must surrender, is the plaintiff entitled to indemnity for deprivation of possession, an...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)