Case Digest (G.R. No. 29161)
Facts:
James J. Rafferty v. Province of Cebu, G.R. No. 29161; G.R. No. 29162, December 29, 1928, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johns, J., writing for the Court.The appellant, James J. Rafferty, brought two actions in the lower court (case Nos. 6336 and 6362). In the first (No. 6336) he alleged ownership of Lot No. 522 and charged that the Province of Cebu had usurped a large portion of it to create a park, had constructed a house thereon and enclosed it, and had refused his demands for possession and removal of improvements. His second cause of action in that case sought, under Article 565 of the Civil Code, a right of way through adjacent lots (Nos. 525 and 524) for Lots Nos. 522 and 523 which allegedly lacked street access; he offered to pay a reasonable price for an 8-meter strip. A motion to file a supplemental complaint claiming consequential expenses and loss of earnings arising from his alleged forced trip from San Francisco to attend the trial was denied.
In the separate action (No. 6362) Rafferty claimed ownership of Lot No. 541 (4,030 sq. m.) and alleged that the Municipality of Cebu had taken 1,154 sq. m. for Fructuoso Ramos Street without his consent, praying for P1,600 in damages. The Province answered both complaints with denials and special defenses asserting that Rafferty had sold (by an instrument dated either November 23, 1910, as the record shows, or March 15, 1912, as pleaded in one special defense) portions of Lot No. 522 (6,723 sq. m., called sublot 522‑B), Lots Nos. 523 and 541 to the Province for P226 (or P226 in the instrument), that the Province had entered, possessed and improved the property in good faith and adversely, and that the Province had transferred sublot 541‑B to the Municipality for the street.
The Province filed a cross‑complaint seeking confirmation of ownership and an order compelling Rafferty to execute deeds for Lots Nos. 523 and 541 and the 6,723 sq. m. of Lot No. 522, and for costs. Rafferty contested ownership, urged statutory defenses (invoking paragraph 5 of Section 335 of Act No. 190 and provisions of the Jones Law), alleged fraud in the execution of the instrument, and claimed the Province had never been in true possession; he filed a lengthy appeal raising forty‑one assignments of error after the trial court, in an exhaustive opinion, found the material facts for the defendants, dismissed Rafferty’s complaints and granted ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Procedural/substantive: Did the trial court err in finding that the Province (and Municipality, where applicable) had the better title or right of possession and in dismissing Rafferty’s complaints and granting the cross‑complaint?
- Substantive: Was Rafferty entitled to rescind or set aside the alleged conveyance (or to recover possession/damages) on the ground of fraud after he had received the consideration and allowed the Province’s open and notorious possession and improvements for about fifteen years?
- Substantive: Could Rafferty obtain a right of way under Article 565 of the Civil Code or recover damages for the taking of Lot No. 541 in view of the factual...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)