Title
Bagoba vs. Ferdez
Case
G.R. No. L-11539
Decision Date
May 19, 1958
Obot's heirs falsely claimed her properties, excluding her son Jose. Trial court ruled in Jose's favor, ordering immediate execution due to bad faith. Supreme Court upheld execution but limited unnecessary documents in appeal.
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-11539)

Parties, Venue, and Procedural Posture

The petition, denominated as certiorari and mandamus, sought to set aside the trial court’s order for the immediate execution of its decision pending appeal, dated October 17, 1956. It also sought to compel the respondent judge to approve the record on appeal “without further amendment,” specifically opposing the inclusion of certain pleadings and documents that the winning party urged and that the trial court required. The case came to the Supreme Court via the petition against the Court of First Instance of Davao, and the decision under review was rendered by the Supreme Court on May 19, 1958, when the applicable constitutional framework was the pre–1987 Constitution.

Legal and Factual Setting of the Property Claims

The dispute stemmed from the succession and property dealings of Obot, identified in the pleadings as presumably a non-Christian, who had one brother (Lopez Suga) and two sisters (Aring and Antap), with Antap leaving three children—petitioners Buat Ongio, Jaime Anga, and Maura Anga—upon her death. Obot cohabited with a Japanese subject, Hasuhiro Nakamura, without the benefit of marriage, and from their union was born an only child, Jose (Nakamura) Original, born on March 30, 1924. Obot died in 1928, leaving the two land parcels.

Lot No. 162 was applied for as a free patent by Obot, but the patent and the corresponding original certificate of title were issued after her death and in favor of her heirs. After Liberation, petitioners and the other relatives took possession of Obot’s properties, particularly Lots 158 and 162, in and around the year 1945.

Affidavits, Transfers, and Claims of Ownership

In 1946, Lopez Suga and his sister Aring executed affidavits stating that Obot died without issue and that they were her only heirs. They further stated that although Obot cohabited with Nakamura, the two were never married, and that Lopez Suga renounced in favor of Aring any right or interest he might have had in Obot’s properties. On the basis of these affidavits, Aring executed an additional affidavit adjudicating Lot No. 158 to herself. Based on this adjudication, Original Certificate of Title No. 573 covering Lot 158 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 193 was issued in her name.

On December 15, 1950, Aring, Lopez Suga, and their nephews and niece—Buat Ongio, Jaime Anga, and Maura Anga—executed a deed of extrajudicial partition of Lot No. 162 and divided it among themselves.

The Japanese Occupation, Enemy Property Custodian Proceedings, and Jose’s Authority

After Obot’s death in 1928, Nakamura took charge of the properties and secured an appointment as guardian of the person and properties of their child, Jose (Nakamura) Original. Nakamura rendered accountings to the court up to his death in 1945. In the meantime, it appeared that, after Nakamura’s death, Obot’s relatives took possession of her properties.

Around 1945, Jose was taken to Japan by the United States Army of occupation to act as interpreter. Considering him a Japanese subject and therefore an enemy alien, the Enemy Property Custodian proceeded to take charge of the properties left by Obot and inherited by Jose as her son. On April 4, 1946, Captain Jose Phelon of the Enemy Property Custodian wrote to Pedro Durano (husband of Aring and then administering her properties) warning that occupying Lot No. 158 was trespassing on land under the custodian’s control.

While still in Japan and employed by the United States Army as interpreter, Jose (Nakamura) Original executed a general power of attorney on August 9, 1951 in favor of Brigido R. Valencia, authorizing him to take charge of Jose’s properties and transact business, including the filing of court actions.

The Trial Court Action and Decision Subject to Execution Pending Appeal

Pursuant to that authority, the case was filed in the Court of First Instance of Davao by Jose, through Valencia, seeking to recover Lots 158 and 162 and to recover damages. After trial, respondent judge rendered a decision dated August 30, 1956. The trial court ordered petitioners to deliver the two lots in question and the improvements thereon to Jose or his legal representative.

The trial court’s factual findings included that petitioners knew that Jose was Obot’s son and that, accordingly, he inherited Obot’s properties. It also found that Aring and Lopez Suga made false statements in their affidavits that Obot died without issue. The trial court further found that petitioners admitted having seen both Jose and his father, Nakamura, on the properties as late as 1945. Although petitioners introduced improvements such as coconut, coffee, and durian trees, the trial court ruled that they were possessors in bad faith, because they knew the lots did not belong to them and because the improvements were introduced after demand was made for them to leave.

The Order for Immediate Execution and Petitioners’ Attack

After the decision, respondent judge granted Jose’s petition for immediate execution on the ground that the appeal prosecuted by petitioners was merely intended to delay, and also considering Jose’s claim that the appeal was frivolous. In the October 17, 1956 order directing the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal, the trial judge stated that, during the hearing on Jose’s motion for execution, defendants tacitly admitted that the land belonged to Jose but claimed that the improvements were introduced in good faith. The trial judge also stated that defendants promised to deliver the land upon Jose’s return to the Philippines, but later sought to prevent his return by filing charges in the Philippine Consulate in Tokyo alleging that Jose, during the Japanese occupation, had become a member of the Japanese Military Police (Kempetai) and had committed various crimes, despite knowing those allegations were false.

Supreme Court Treatment of Execution Pending Appeal

The Court held that the order for the issuance of the writ of execution was “properly and correctly issued.” It therefore denied the petition insofar as it sought to annul the trial court’s order for immediate execution pending appeal.

Record on Appeal Amendments and Mandamus Relief Sought

The petition advanced a second cause of action. It alleged that, at Jose’s instance, respondent judge ordered petitioners to amend the record on appeal by adding certain pleadings and documents that petitioners deemed unnecessary. The Court agreed w

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.