Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1909 > February 1909 Decisions > G.R. No. 3876 March 27, 1909 - RUFINA YATCO v. JESUALDO GANA

013 Phil 305:

On the 3d of February, 1906, Rufina Yatco brought these proceedings against Jusualdo Gana for the recovery of two parcels of arable land and one building lot situated in the municipality of Cabuyao, Province of La Laguna, a description of which is contained in the complaint. She prayed therein that the said lands be returned to her, that the defendant be sentenced to pay her P850 for losses and damages, that said defendant lose the crops existing thereon at the present time as well as the fruits of said lands, and that he pay the costs. Besides a general denial of all the facts alleged in the complaint, the defendant, on his part set up the following as special defense:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That he is the sole and exclusive owner of the building lot and the two parcels of land referred to in the complaint, he having acquired them from Eugenio Andal by a contract of purchase and sale on the 16th of October, 1894.

Second. That he has been in the quiet and peaceful possession of the said property as owner for more than 11 years, to wit, since the aforesaid 16th day of October, 1894; and he asked to be absolved of the complaint.

At the hearing it was stipulated between the parties that the two parcels of unirrigated lands situated on the east and west side of the road from Calamba to Cabuyao, as well as the building lot concerning which the defendant had offered evidence, are the same as those claimed by the plaintiff. Documentary and oral evidence were presented by both parties to the suit, and the Court of First Instance of La Laguna in deciding the case absolved the defendant, Jesualdo Gana, of the complaint with the costs against the plaintiff Rufina Yatco. After moving for a new trial the plaintiff has appealed to this court from the said judgment by means of the corresponding bill of exceptions.

On appeal, and from the brief of the appellant and the evidence adduced by the parties, it appears that the court below drew the following conclusions of fact:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. That the plaintiff, as heir to her father, Isidro Yatco, among other properties, received the lands in controversy.

2. That in consequence of proceedings in execution brought in July, 1894, by the late Yatco against the spouses Eugenio Andal and Gregoria Faciolco, the said lands were attached on the 23d of March, 1895, and as no bidders appeared at the public auction, they were adjudicated in payment to the execution creditor by an order of the lower court dated April 15, 1898. The corresponding instrument of sale was not executed nor was the execution creditor put in possession of the property until the 26th and 27th of August, 1902, in compliance with an order dated February 21 of the same year, issued upon request of the said creditor.

3. That the credit of the execution creditor, Yatco, is not recorded in the registry of property, nor were the attached properties charged with the payment of any debts, or entered in the register; that the defendant debtor, Andal, had informed the officer who was sent to enforce the order of attachment, that the property now in question had already been sold by him to the defendant, Jesualdo Gana, prior to the date of the attachment.

4. That on the 16th of October, 1894, the defendant, Gana, acquired the said lands from Eugenio Andal by mean of a public instrument of purchase and sale executed in the presence of Higinio Benitez, the late notary public of La Laguna; the said instrument was lost during the late insurrection, but appears on the index of the notarial acts executed in La Laguna, on file at the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court.

5. That since the said 16th day of October, 1894, the defendant has been in possession of the said properties and has held them as owner until the present day, with the exception of the years 1900 to 1904 when the tillage was suspended on account of public calamities, although the laborers continued to live there except during the reconcentration period in 1902, when they were compelled by force to leave the said lands.

6. That the defendant was not required by the sheriff to deliver the possession of the lands to the representative of the late Yatco, and notwithstanding the proceedings in compliance with the order of February 21, 1902, already cited, the said lands.

The court below found for the defendant, considering that it had been fully proven that the lands in controversy were sold to the principal of the plaintiff and to the defendant, and deciding the question as to which of the purchasers had acquired the ownership and dominion over the purchased thing in accordance with article 1473 of the Civil Code, the court also considered the fact that there was no entry in the register, and that besides being the first in possession the defendant had an older title, which circumstances the law assumes were accompanied by good faith, as the contrary has not been shown by the plaintiff. In addition thereto the court below considered that the action for recovery brought in this case lacked foundation because, although the deceased father of the plaintiff obtained the adjudication of the lands in question, there was no delivery, either real or symbolical, at the public sale in which the adjudication took plaice, and he could not have acquired any real right, from which an action for recovery, such as the brought in this case, might arise; that the debt which gave rise to the proceedings in execution was purely personal, it was not entered in the registry of property, nor had the lands in question any specific encumbrance; for these reasons the said property could be and was validly sold by its owner, Eugenio Andal, to the defendant Gana, notwithstanding the fact that Andal was a debtor of the late Yatco, father of the plaintiff; and finally, the fact that the defendant Gana did not intervene in the said proceedings in execution could not prejudice him as he could at any time avail himself of his title of ownership to the thing sold; nor could the adjudication of the property made in said proceedings operate against him because the property was not delivered to the execution creditor and he could not have acquired a title in re thereto. As the defendant had not lost his right of possession over the property under execution, he had no need to bring any action whatever, even though the sheriff of La Laguna had placed the representative of the plaintiff in possession in August, 1902, without notice to the defendant. The latter did not then lose his possession, nor was such present possession compatible, as a matter of fact, with that which the court, without the knowledge of the defendant, granted the plaintiff by a simple order, one which always implies the clause

Back to Home | Back to Main