Case Summary (G.R. No. 45742)
Salient Property Transactions
The record showed that Gregoria Pimentel, the original owner, sold and conveyed the same two parcels of land to Pedro Abena on June 1, 1926. The document of sale in favor of Abena (Exhibit 1) was duly inscribed in the registry of property of the province on January 31, 1927. From April 1927, the parcels were declared for taxation in Abena’s name. Subsequently, on January 27, 1927, Gregoria Pimentel executed another sale and conveyance of the same parcels to Tiburcio Mamuyac. Mamuyac’s deed of sale was not inscribed in the property registry, and the parcels were not declared for taxation in his name.
Trial Court Proceedings in the Court of First Instance
To resolve the conflict arising from the two conveyances, Mamuyac instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of La Union against Abena for the recovery of the two parcels of land. After hearing, the trial court rendered judgment for the defendant, Pedro Abena.
Appeal to the Court of Appeals
Mamuyac appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court, with one member dissenting, affirmed the trial court’s decision. The majority’s dispositive statement declared that, “in any view of the question, whether under the theory of the plaintiff as to possession or under Article 1473 of the Civil Code, which has exact application to the present case, the court did not commit any error in rendering judgment in favor of the defendant,” and it confirmed the judgment with costs against the appellant.
Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court and Scope of Review
Mamuyac elevated the case to the Supreme Court by certiorari. The petitioner’s first assignment of error challenged the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals. The Court rejected that approach, holding that, in appeals from the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction was limited to reviewing errors of law, while the Court of Appeals’ findings of fact were final for the Supreme Court. It cited Guico vs. Mayuga and Heirs of Mayuga (1936) for the proposition on the limited review of legal errors, and it relied on the statutory limitation then expressed in Commonwealth Act No. 3, amending section 138 of the Administrative Code, in relation to section 2, Article VIII of the Constitution of the Philippines, and echoed in Mateo vs. Collector of Customs and Court of Appeals (1936), that review was confined to cases where only errors or questions of law were involved.
Mamuyac’s Second and Third Assignments of Error: Mortgage and Better Right
In his second and third assignments of error, Mamuyac argued that he had a better right over the parcels because of possession he claimed to have in virtue of an alleged private contract of mortgage executed in his favor on January 4, 1935 (Exhibit B). The Court found this contention unavailing. It emphasized that for a mortgage to be legally constituted, the instrument showing it had to be a public document and recorded in the property register. It held that a mortgage in legal form was not constituted by the private document.
The Court further explained that even assuming arguendo that the mortgage was valid, Article 1473 of the Civil Code cited by Mamuyac could only be used to determine preference in a conflict involving sale and sale made by the vendor over the same property. It was not a tool for resolving a conflict between a sale and a mortgage. The Court treated as instructive the principle that Article 1473 applied to disputes between the buyer of an immovable and the seller’s creditor with a mortgage over the same immovable sold, only in settings consistent with the article’s framework and the legal requirement of the buyer’s status and inscription; and it concluded that the case before it did not present the factual and legal conditions for the claimed reliance.
Priority Based on Registration and the Effect of the Sale to Abena
The Court then addressed, in substance, the controlling legal effect of the competing conveyances. Even if the Court accepted Mamuyac’s theory that he possessed the properties by reason of the alleged mortgage contract, and even if it accorded legal effect to Mamuyac’s sale deed dated January 27, 1927 despite its lack of registration, his right could not prevail over Abena’s. The Court stressed that Abena had duly registered his deed of sale through the inscription of Exhibit 1 in the property registry.
Claimed Lack of Delivery of Possession
Mamuyac also argued that Abena’s ownership and pr
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 45742)
- The case arose from a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Tiburcio Mamuyac to assail a Court of Appeals decision promulgated on July 30, 1937, in CA-G. R. “No. 43446.”
- The underlying controversy concerned conflicting claims of ownership and preference over the same two parcels of land sold by Gregoria Pimentel to two different transferees at different dates.
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Gregoria Pimentel acted as vendor who sold and conveyed the same parcels of land to two buyers.
- Pedro Abena (alias Indong) acted as respondent-appellee and had acquired one sale by deed that was later duly inscribed in the registry of property.
- Tiburcio Mamuyac acted as petitioner-appellant and challenged the adverse judgment on the basis of possession and an alleged mortgage contract.
- Mamuyac filed an action in the Court of First Instance of La Union seeking recovery of the two controverted parcels of land.
- The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Abena, and Mamuyac appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, with one member dissenting.
- Mamuyac elevated the case to the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari.
Key Factual Allegations
- Gregoria Pimentel owned two parcels of land that she sold and conveyed on June 1, 1926 to Pedro Abena.
- On January 27, 1927, Gregoria Pimentel again sold and conveyed the same parcels to Tiburcio Mamuyac.
- The deed of sale executed in favor of Abena was duly inscribed in the registry of property on January 31, 1927.
- From April 1927, the parcels were declared for taxation in the name of Abena.
- The deed of sale executed in favor of Mamuyac on January 27, 1927 was not inscribed in the registry of property.
- The parcels were also not declared for taxation in the name of Mamuyac.
- Mamuyac claimed entitlement to the parcels based on possession allegedly derived from an asserted contract of mortgage executed in his favor.
- Mamuyac relied on Exhibit B, identified as a private contract of mortgage executed in his favor on January 4, 1935.
- Abena, for his part, relied on his registered deed of sale, identified as Exhibit 1, and argued that it controlled the conflict.
Issues Raised
- Mamuyac’s first assignment of error challenged the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals.
- Mamuyac’s second and third assignments of error asserted that he had a better right based on possession and an alleged mortgage contract.
- The case also involved the legal effect of unregistered instruments and the effect of alleged lack of material delivery of possession.
- The conflict called for determination of whether Article 1473 of the Civil Code could resolve a dispute involving a mortgage and a sale.
Governing Doctrines on Certiorari Review
- The Court held that in cases brought from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, appellate jurisdiction was limited to reviewing and