Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > March 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 2116 March 16, 1906 - BERNARDINO CACNIO v. LAZARO BAENS

005 Phil 742:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2116. March 16, 1906. ]

BERNARDINO CACNIO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LAZARO BAENS, Defendant-Appellee.

Francisco Rodriguez, for Appellants.

Modesto Reyes, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL; EXCEPTION; REVIEW. — Where to the order overruling a motion for a new trial no exception is taken by the appellants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3, section 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate court has no power to review the evidence taken at the trial.

2. PUBLIC INSTRUMENTS AS EVIDENCE. — Public instruments authorized by a notary or a competent public official, with all the solemnities required by law, are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. (Articles 1216 and 1218 of the Civil Code.)

3. REALTY; PRESCRIPTION; DEED; RIGHT OF ACTIONS. — An action for the recovery of a piece of land alleged to have been acquired by extraordinary prescription can not be maintained against the person in possession thereof by virtue of a title deed issued to him by the Government and duly recorded in the Registry of Property.

4. CIVIL PROCEDURE; JUDGMENT; ERROR. — If the trial court, in weighing the testimony, followed the provisions of section 273 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there can be no legal ground upon which to base a finding that the court erred in rendering judgment in accordance therewith.


D E C I S I O N


TORRES, J. :


The defendant, Lazaro Baens, brought an action in the court of the justice of the peace of Tambobong against the plaintiffs herein for the recovery of several tracts of land, and judgment having been rendered against the said plaintiffs, they appealed to the Court of First Instance. The plaintiffs, now appellants, alleged that they were the absolute owners of their respective building lots in the barrio of Hulong Duhat of the said town of Tambobong and described the boundaries of each particular tract, asked that they be declared to be entitled to the ownership and possession of their respective lots; that they be awarded the sum of 600 dollars damages and the costs of proceedings; and as a special remedy prayed for a preliminary injunction to stop further proceedings in the action for ejectment which had been brought against them, alleging in support of their petition that the land belonging to Bernardino Cacnio had a superficial area of 11 ares 95 centares and 15 square centimeters, and that belonging to Severino de la Cruz had 4 ares 60 centares and 55 square centimeters, which said land they acquired by inheritance from their respective parents, who had been in possession of the same for more than forty years; the defendant, Baens, never having been in possession of the same.

The preliminary injunction prayed for in order to stay the execution of the judgments which might have been entered in the actions in which the plaintiffs, Cacnio and Cruz, were interested, until the final disposition of the other action for title and possession, having been issued, the defendant demurred and in his answer to the complaint, filed immediately thereafter, generally and specifically denied all of the allegations contained therein. The denial of the second paragraph of the complaint was limited to the statement contained in the same that without just cause the defendant had brought the action, and that in view of the ruling upon the said demurrer, the defendant reproduced his former answer.

Counsel for plaintiffs asked that the fourth paragraph of the complaint be amended so as to read that the plaintiffs acquired the possession and ownership of their respective lands by inheritance from their father, Severino de la Cruz, and his wife, Bernardina Cacnio, and asked that the inscription of the said land made in favor of the defendant, Baens, be declared null and void.

The defendant stated that he did no objection to the allowance of these amendments, but that he specifically denied each and all of the allegations contained therein.

Counsel for plaintiffs limited himself to impugning in writing the probatory force of the documents presented by the defendant, but did not discuss the materiality of the same. Counsel for defendant, therefore, asked the court to consider the proof presented by him as having been duly allowed. The court reversed his decision upon the question of the admissibility of these documents offered in evidence by the defendant, directed that the case proceed and the evidence be taken; and after hearing the same, judgment was rendered on the 8th day of September, 1903, declaring that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the lands claimed by the defendant, and vacating the preliminary injunction theretofore issued in favor of the plaintiffs, who were taxed with the costs.

First of all and for the purpose of this decision, we should state that the order of the court of the 30th of October, 1903, denying the motion for a new trial, no exception was taken by counsel for plaintiffs as required in paragraph 3, section 497 of the Civil Code of Procedure. We can not, therefore, review the evidence, nor can we draw the facts proved the necessary conclusions to render a final judgment; as justice and equity require, to quote the law itself.

Consequently this court, following the general provision contained in the first paragraph of above-cited section 497, will only pass upon the question of law decided by the court below.

The plaintiffs brought an action to recover title to certain parcels of land then in their possession. The defendant denied the title and possession which the plaintiffs arises, Which of the parties has the better title to the land?

The title deeds presented by the defendant were issued by the Direccion General de Administracion Civil on the 25th of October, 1891, to him as the owner of a larger tract of land in which the land in question is included, the defendant having acquired the same by composition with the Government. This deed or patent was recorded in the Registry of Property on the 14th of November, 1891, as found by the court below, and as is admitted in the printed briefs presented to this court and in the record of the documentary proof presented by the defendant. Counsel for plaintiffs denied the validity of the said deed, giving his reasons therefor, but did not deny the fact that the document had been actually recorded, nor did he ask the court to disallow and reject the documents evidence thus presented. The court, after considering this evidence, dismissed the action, and decided the same in favor of the defendant.

Public instruments, that is to say, those instruments authorized by a notary public or by a competent public official with all the solemnities required by law, are admissible in evidence even against a third party as to the fact which gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. (Arts. 1216 and 1218 of the Civil Code.)

In the registry of real estate there should be recorded, according to articles 1 and 2 of the Mortgage Law, among others, all instruments of conveyance of real estate or any interests therein, all instruments relating to the acquisition of such property or property rights owned or administered by the State, and other entities referred to in number 6, article 2 of the said law.

As has been seen, the deed presented by the defendant to prove his title to the land in question is a public instrument, it having been authorized by the Director of Civil Administration of the Spanish Government, who was the competent official empowered to issue such instrument, and was duly recorded in the Registry of Property in accordance with the law. Consequently it is competent proof and may prejudice third persons who for the purpose of this law are those who did not participate in the execution of the instrument of contract thus recorded. (Arts. 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the Mortgage Law.)

The inscription, therefore, of the instruments in question prejudices the plaintiffs, Cacnio and Cruz, notwithstanding the fact that they did not participate in the proceedings relating to the composition of the said land between the State and the defendant, and in view of the provisions of article 27 of the Mortgage Law there can be no doubt that the said plaintiffs should be considered as third persons, whom the execution of the deed or instrument of the defendant and the inscription thereof in the Registry of Property affected and prejudiced.

It has not been shown that the deed or patent issued by the Direccion General de Administracion Civil had any substancial defect which would render it null and void, nor has it been proved that the party failed to publish the necessary notice as to the possession of the land to which the said deed refers; and under paragraph 31 of section 334 of the Code of Civil Procedure it must be presumed that this was done in accordance with the law until the contrary is shown.

The defendant having complied with all the requisites and solemnities prescribed by law for the registration of the said deed, and there being no proof of any defect which would render such instrument null and void, it can not be held to be void, and it was decided by the court below in its judgment.

The question is raised as to whether the parol evidence introduced by the plaintiffs for the purpose of showing that they had acquired title to the land, the recovery of which is now sought, by extraordinary prescription under article 1959 of the Civil Code was sufficient to overcome and defeat the right of the defendant based upon a deed issued to him by the State and duly recorded in the Registry of Property. The court below in deciding this question held that the deed or patent issued by the Direccion General de Administracion Civil showed that the defendant had a better right than the plaintiffs to the land in question, and that the latter had no right to claim the ownership thereof. This ruling of the court should, in our opinion, be sustained, and can not in this case be reviewed, according to section 497 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Further, it should be borne in mind that the court below, in the exercise, of its discretion as to the veracity of the witnesses and the manner in which they testified, followed the provisions of section 273 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure, and no valid reason has been assigned to support a finding that the court below committed an error in rendering the decision appealed from.

For the reasons hereinbefore stated we are of the opinion that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed, and the defendant acquitted of the complaint filed by the plaintiffs, with the costs of this instance. After the expiration of twenty days, let judgment be entered in accordance herewith, and let the cause be remanded to the Court of First Instance for execution of the judgment. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1904 March 3, 1906 - FRANCISCO GONZALEZ QUIROS v. CARLOS PALANCA TAN-GUINLAY

    005 Phil 675

  • G.R. No. 2763 March 3, 1906 - W.L. WRIGHT v. ALFRED F. SMITH, ET AL.

    005 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. 1451 March 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. AURELIO TOLENTINO

    005 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. 2500 March 8, 1906 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION MARTINEZ CAÑAS v. MARIANO TUASON, ET AL.

    005 Phil 688

  • G.R. No. 2645 March 8, 1906 - FRANCISCA CABREROS v. VICTORINO PROSPERO

    005 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. 1928 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    005 Phil 695

  • G.R. No. 2430 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LEANDRO VILLARINO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 697

  • G.R. No. 2434 March 9, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BERNARDO BOAC

    005 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. 1974 March 15, 1906 - CATHOLIC CHURCH v. A. W. HASTINGS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 2020 March 15, 1906 - GERMANN & CO. v. LUIS R. YANGCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 2452 March 15, 1906 - MATILDE BALLESTER v. GONZALO LEGASPI

    005 Phil 722

  • G.R. No. 2600 March 15, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANK DE L. CARRINGTON

    005 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. 3139 March 15, 1906 - ALEJANDRO SANTOS v. CELESTINO VILLAFUERTE

    005 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 2116 March 16, 1906 - BERNARDINO CACNIO v. LAZARO BAENS

    005 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. 2327 March 17, 1906 - LUIS PEREZ SAMANILLO v. W.A. WHALEY, ET AL.

    005 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 2457 March 17, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANICETO DADACAY

    006 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 2575 March 17, 1906 - MARIA DE LA CONCEPCION MARTINEZ CAÑAS v. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN MATEO

    006 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 2570 March 21, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO ASUNCION

    006 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 2292 March 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO

    006 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 2721 March 22, 1906 - RAFAEL MOLINA v. ANTONIO DE LA RIVA

    006 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 2603 March 26, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANK DE L. CARRINGTON

    006 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 2695 March 26, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO YSIP

    006 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 2733 March 27, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS ARCEO

    006 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. 1458 March 29, 1906 - MAX L. FORNOW v. J. C. HOFFMEISTER

    006 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 2735 March 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO REYES

    006 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. 2969 March 29, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO J. REYES

    006 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. 1009 March 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO SANTA MARIA

    006 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. 1202 March 31, 1906 - FRANCISCO SAEZ CO-TIONGCO v. CO-QUING-CO

    006 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. 1922 March 31, 1906 - CITY OF MANILA v. FRANCISCO GAMBE

    006 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 2336 March 31, 1906 - JOAQUIN PELLICENA CAMACHO v. LEONCIO GONZALEZ LIQUETE

    006 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 2676 March 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO HORCA

    006 Phil 52