Case Digest (G.R. No. 27054)
Facts:
Macaria Solis v. Chua Pua Hermanos and Carlos Ilustre, G.R. No. 27054. September 09, 1927. Supreme Court En Banc. Street, J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff-appellant, Macaria Solis, sued Chua Pua Hermanos and Carlos Ilustre (the latter in his capacity as sheriff) in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Batangas to annul an attachment levied by the sheriff upon a house and lot in Lipa, Batangas, and to recover P20,000 in damages for the alleged improper levy. Ilustre admitted, in his official capacity, that he had levied the attachment; Chua Pua Hermanos answered with a general denial, a special defense and a counterclaim alleging that the deed under which Solis claimed was simulated and fictitious and prayed that the deed be declared null and that the attachment be sustained.
The trial court found that the deed of February 6, 1921, by which Jose H. Katigbak purportedly conveyed the property to Macaria Solis and Pablo S. Katigbak was simulated and fictitious and that it had been executed to hinder and delay Katigbak’s creditors; the trial court accordingly absolved the defendants from Solis’s complaint, with costs. From that judgment Solis appealed to the Supreme Court.
The salient facts found or appearing of record were: the lot and house had been conveyed on December 23, 1918 by Justo Reyes and wife to Jose H. Katigbak and Mercedes Katigbak for P10,600; on February 6, 1921 Jose executed a purported conveyance of the same property to Macaria and Pablo for P40,000 (acknowledged February 7, 1921). Macaria was Jose’s aunt; Pablo was his brother and resided with them when in the Philippines. Nearly a year after the 1921 conveyance, Chua Pua Hermanos instituted a suit against Jose H. Katigbak and, in connection therewith, caused an attachment to be levied on the property. Macaria filed a third-party claim in the attachment proceedings; Chua Pua Hermanos indemnified the sheriff and the levy was maintained. Solis then brought the present action to annul the attachment and claim damages.
On review the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that the evidence supported an inference that the P40,000 consideration stated in the 1921 deed was probably not paid (i.e., the deed was simulated insofar as the consideration was concerned), but found no evidentiary basis for the trial court’s further conclusion that the conveyance was made in fraud of creditors because there was no proof that Chua Pua Hermanos were creditors of Jose H. Katigbak at the time of the conveyance. The Court therefore reversed the judgment and remanded the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Must Jose H. Katigbak be joined as a party to the defendants’ cross-complaint seeking rescission or annulment of the deed?
- Was the February 6, 1921 conveyance simulated insofar as the stated consideration (P40,000) is concerned?
- Could the trial court properly declare the conveyance fraudulent as against creditors in the absence of proof that Chua Pua Hermanos were creditors of Jose H. Katigbak at the time of the conveyance and that Katig...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)