Facts:

The case titled Carlos Martell Ong vs. Carloto Jariol et al. originated on February 16, 1909, when Carlos Martell Ong, the plaintiff and appellant, lodged a complaint against Carloto Jariol, Leandro Jariol, Gregorio Nanaman, and M. W. Frield, the defendants and appellees, in the Court of First Instance in Lanao. Ong claimed ownership of a 72-hectare parcel of land located in Cababalahan, barrio of Santa Filomena, in the pueblo of Uigan, Moro Province. This land, he contended, was mortgaged for ₱400 to Carloto Jariol y Agana without interest. He asserted that the mortgage entailed a return of the property upon the repayment of the loan along with expenses incurred for improvements made by Jariol.

After allegedly failing to have the mortgage conditions fulfilled, Ong learned that Carloto's son, Alejandro Jariol, had sold the property to Gregorio Nanaman, who subsequently sold it to M. W. Frield. The plaintiff claimed that he had demanded the return of his property but was met

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• On February 16, 1909, Carlos Martell Ong, through his counsel, filed a written complaint in the Court of First Instance of the district of Lanao.
• The complaint was directed against Carloto Jariol, Leandro Jariol, Gregorio Nanaman, and M. W. Frield.
• The dispute centered on a parcel of land located at Cababalahan in the barrio of Santa Filomena, pueblo of Uigan, Moro Province, with an area of approximately 72 hectares planted with fruit trees.

Allegations of the Plaintiff

• The plaintiff claimed to be the rightful owner and proprietor of the subject land.
• He alleged that he had mortgaged the property for P400 without interest to Carloto Jariol y Agana under an agreement that provided for the return of the property should the mortgagee be repaid along with expenses for improvements.
• The plaintiff asserted that he had demanded the return of his land from Carloto Jariol and, later, from Alejandro Jariol but discovered that the property had been conveyed from Alejandro to Gregorio Nanaman and subsequently to the American, Abae or Abaid.
• The plaintiff contended that the defendants’ refusal to return the property caused him a financial loss amounting to P200, due to lost fruits and damages, and that the property was in imminent danger of further loss unless a receiver was appointed.

Relief Sought by the Plaintiff

• The plaintiff prayed for the appointment of a receiver to oversee the care, preservation, and administration of the property during the litigation.
• He also offered to deposit P400—the mortgage sum—with the clerk of the court.
• The complaint further sought the nullification of any transfer or conveyance effected by the defendants, the return of the property (including trees, fruits, and buildings), and the payment of P200 as indemnity for damages plus costs.

Defendants’ Response and Counterclaims

• The defendants, on August 14, 1909, filed an amended answer and withdrew their demurrer.
• They admitted the first paragraph of the complaint but denied all subsequent allegations.
• As a special defense, they alleged that:
• On April 6, 1906, the plaintiff unconditionally sold the land to Carloto Jariol as shown in a notarial instrument (Exhibit 1).
• Subsequently, on July 25, 1908, following the death of Carloto Jariol (June 1, 1908), the widow and his son sold the land to Gregorio Nanaman, who then sold it to M. W. Frield on February 6, 1909.
• The plaintiff had previously recovered a judgment against Leandro Jariol for P200 concerning losses from the unauthorized sale, which was executed without appeal.
• The defendants also counterclaimed for loss and damage suffered by M. W. Frield due to the appointment of a receiver, seeking P175 for each trimester of deprivation.

Documents and Exhibits

• Exhibit 1: The notarial instrument dated April 6, 1906, evidencing the sale of the land from the plaintiff to Carloto Jariol.
• Exhibit A (and its Spanish translation, Exhibit B): A privately drawn instrument, also executed on April 6, 1906, in the Visayan dialect, wherein Carloto Jariol purportedly undertook to return the land to the plaintiff upon receipt of P400 along with the cost of improvements.
• Other exhibits established the chain of conveyance: from the widow and heirs via a sale to Nanaman, and then from Nanaman to M. W. Frield.

Trial and Subsequent Proceedings

• The trial included the presentation of testimonies and documentary exhibits by both parties.
• On September 3, 1909, the trial court rendered judgment absolving the defendants and dismissing the preliminary injunction (later amended to read “receivership”) against them.
• The plaintiff, not satisfied with the ruling, excepted and filed motions for a new trial, but these motions were overruled.
• The record was forwarded along with the certificate of exceptions to the higher court for further review.

Issue:

Characterization of the Contract

• Whether the contract evidenced by Exhibit 1 represents an absolute, unconditional sale of the land, or whether it was subject to the covenant of resale (pacto de retro) as purported in the private instrument Exhibit A.
• Whether Exhibit A, drawn up after Exhibit 1, can validly amend or alter the terms of the notarial instrument and bind subsequent purchasers.

Effect of Private Documents Against Third Parties

• Whether a privately executed instrument (Exhibit A) can have probative and binding effect against third parties, particularly those who acquired the land in good faith (Gregorio Nanaman and M. W. Frield).
• Application of Article 1230 of the Civil Code regarding the limited effect of private instruments on third persons.

Validity and Nullity of Successive Transfers

• Whether the successive transfers of the property—by the widow and heirs selling to Nanaman, and Nanaman selling to Frield—are legally valid in light of the alleged covenant in Exhibit A.
• Whether the plaintiff, despite his claim based on Exhibit A, can claim nullification of the deeds of conveyance executed by bona fide purchasers.

Availability of Relief

• Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the parcel of land given that he had already recovered a judgment for damages related to loss by sale.
• Whether the appointment of a receiver and the attached indemnity claims are justified under the circumstances.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)