Case Digest (G.R. No. 35797)
Facts:
Toribio Laxamana v. Laureana Carlos et al., G.R. No. 35797, December 13, 1932, Supreme Court En Banc, Villa-Real, J., writing for the Court. The decision resolves seven consolidated appeals from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga in registration proceeding No. 713 (G.L.R.O. Rec. No. 27683), which had denied oppositions and decreed registration of several lots in favor of applicant Toribio Laxamana (and his wife Leoncla Conui), except as to certain parcels.
Opponents-appellants included Bernardo Samson (opposing registration of lot No. 1), the Municipality of San Luis, Pampanga (opposing lot No. 35), and a group of private opponents — Laureana Carlos, Juliana Franco, Teodulo V. Franco, Severina Franco, and Felipe Carlos — who opposed registration of various other lots (Nos. 54, 63, 16 (part of 55), 53, 17, 23, 50, and 58). The trial court sustained one opposition (portion of lot No. 36 occupied by Cunanan, and lot No. 60) but otherwise dismissed oppositions and decreed registration to the applicant. The opponents appealed to the Supreme Court.
At trial the material facts concerning lot No. 1 were: Engracio Catacutan (original owner) executed on May 6, 1921 an unrecorded instrument (Exhibit 1-Samson) selling lot No. 1 to Josefa Palma with a two-year right of repurchase and remaining in possession as lessee paying annual rent; by an unrecorded instrument of December 29, 1921 Engracio purported to sell his interest to Bernardo Samson, conditioned on registration and Samson’s paying what Engracio owed Palma; on October 27, 1922 the provincial sheriff sold the property at execution to Toribio Laxamana; a deed of absolute sale by the sheriff was executed and recorded October 30, 1923; Laxamana took possession in December 1923 and collected the fruits; after the redemption period elapsed Josefa Palma sold to Bernardo Samson on January 25, 1924 (Exhibit 2-Samson). The trial court characterized Exhibit 1 as a mortgage and adjudicated the lots to Laxamana subject to certain rights; it denied Samson’s opposition.
Procedurally, several private appellants (Carlos, the Francos, Felipe Carlos) filed a motion for a new trial on April 17, 1931 (grounded on insufficient evidence), then — before the trial court ruled on it — filed a notice of appeal and a bill of exceptions (April 27, 1931); the trial court later approved the bill of exceptions (April 30, 1931). The applicant argued this sequence constituted abandonment of the motion for new trial and barred review of factual matters on appeal.
Concerning lots Nos. 17 and 23 (claimed to be included in Teodulo V. Franco’s Torrens title No. 159), the Court of First Instance had adjudicated them to the applicant but allowed Franco to prove inclusion; the Chief Surveyor of the General Land Registration Office reported that the older plan was defective and recommended a Bureau of Lands investigation. Regarding lot No. 35 the Municipality of San Luis asserted it was the historic barrio road; the applicant disputed tha...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the appellants who filed a motion for new trial and thereafter filed a notice of appeal and bill of exceptions before the motion was decided abandon the motion and thereby waive the right to have the evidence reviewed on appeal?
- Was the unrecorded instrument of May 6, 1921 (Exhibit 1-Samson) a sale with a right of repurchase or a mortgage?
- Did the purchaser at the execution sale, Toribio Laxamana, acquire a better right to lot No. 1 than Josefa Palma (and later Bernardo Samson) despite the sheriff’s deed being recorded?
- Is lot No. 35 the historic barrio road belonging to the Municipality of San Luis?
- Should the records be remanded for further investigat...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)