Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > March 1911 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5333 March 25, 1911 - UY ALOC, ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING, ET AL.

019 Phil 202:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5333. March 25, 1911.]

UY ALOC, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CHO JAN LING, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

W.H. Bishop and Gibbs and Gale for Appellants.

Kincaid and Hurd for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER; NON-PREJUDICIAL ERROR. — The judgment of the court below will not be reversed for alleged error in the appointment of a receiver which in no wise affects the merits of the controversy, and from which appellants suffered no damage for which they should have redress.

2. REALTY; PURCHASE WITH FUNDS OF ANOTHER; REGISTRATION; OWNERSHIP. — The case at bar distinguished from the case of Martinez v. Martinez (1 Phil. Rep., 647.) In the former case there was no proof of plaintiff’s claim of the beneficial ownership of the property in question, which was registered in the name of the defendant, other than the bare fact that the money used in the purchase of the property in question was advanced by the plaintiff; while in the case at bar it appears that not only were the funds, with which the property, Cho Jan Ling, in whose name it was registered, received and holds this property as the agent and trustee of the association of which plaintiffs were members.


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J.:


After a careful examination of the evidence of record in this case we are satisfied that the material findings of fact by the trial court are fully sustained thereby, and that upon the facts as proven that court properly granted the relief afforded by the decree from which this appeal was taken.

From the facts proven at the trial it appears that a number of Chinese merchants raised a fund by voluntary subscription with which they purchased a valuable tract of land and erected a large building to be used as a sort of club house for the mutual benefit of the subscribers to the fund. The subscriber organized themselves into an irregular association, which had no regular articles in the commercial registry or elsewhere. The association not having any existence as a legal entity, it was agreed to have the title to the property placed in the name of one of the members, the defendant, Cho Jan Ling, who on his part accepted the trust, and agreed to hold the property as the agent of the members of the association. After the club building was completed with the funds of the members of the association, Cho Jan Ling collected some P25,000 in rents for which he failed and refused to account, and upon proceedings being instituted to compel him to do so, he set up title in himself to the club property as well as to the rents accruing therefrom, falsely alleging that he had bought the real estate and constructed the building with his own funds, and denying the claims of the members of the association that it was their funds which had been used for that purpose.

The decree of the trial court provides for the conveyance of the club house and the land on which it stands from the defendant, Cho Jan Ling, in whose name it is registered, to the members of the association, and further makes provision for an accounting by him for rents had and received.

Accepting the truth of the above-set-out summary of the facts proven at the trial, we think appellant’s assignments of error are entitled to but scant consideration, in so far as they are based on alleged abuses of discretion by the trial court in improvidently appointing a receiver pending these proceedings, and in permitting amendments to the original complaint, chiefly for the purpose of bringing in the proper parties to this action. Even if he admitted that the court erred in appointing a receiver at the institution of these proceedings and in retaining him after he had been appointed, this alleged error in no wise affected the real merits of the case; and in the light of the facts set out above it will be hardly be contended that the appellants have suffered any damage for which they should have redress, merely because, during the pendency of this action and without awaiting the final decree compelling them to disgorge, the court took under its own guardian care certain funds and property which they unjustly sought to retain, although its retention by them involved a flagrant breach of trust on their part. So, too, even if we were to admit, which we do not, that the trial judge was too liberal in his allowance of amendments to the complaint filed in this proceeding, we are nevertheless unable to see that any real or substantial right of the appellants was prejudiced thereby. Due, doubtless, to the inherent difficulties which must be anticipated in the conduct of a case wherein a large number of the parties are Chinese persons, unable to speak any tongue but their own, some formal or technical irregularities seem to have crept into the proceedings in the court below and an unusually large number of amendments of the pleadings appear to have been necessary for the proper development of the facts and in order to bring in all the parties interested, but none of these irregularities or amendments in any wise prejudiced the defense set up by the appellants in the court below, and assignments of error based thereon can not be sustained under section 503 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that "No judgment shall be reversed on formal or technical grounds, or for such error as has not prejudiced the real rights of the excepting party."cralaw virtua1aw library

Accepting, as we do, the truth and accuracy of the facts found by the trial court there can be no shadow of doubt that the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief furnished them by the decree. The attempt on the part of the appellants to escape the logical and manifestly just consequences of the conclusions of facts set out in the opinion of the trial judge by pointing this court to the doctrine laid down in its decisions in the case of Martinez v. Martinez (1 Phil. Rep., 647) and the case of Compañia General de Tabacos v. Topiño (4 Phil. Rep., 33), can not and should not succeed. It is at most an attempt to substitute for the plain dictates of reason and equity certain technical propositions of law laid down in those cases which have no proper application to the facts proven in this case. The Martinez case turned on the lack of proof of the existence of the relationship of principal and agent or of trustee and cestui que trust between the parties, in addition to proof that the funds with which the property was purchased had been furnished by another than him who secured its registry in his own name. In that case at bar we think that the evidence clearly discloses not only that the funds with which the property in question was purchased were furnished by the members of the association, but that Cho Jan Ling, in whose name it was registered, received and holds the property as the agent and trustee of the association; that on at least one occasion he admitted the beneficial ownership to be in the association; and that while the legal registered title is in his name the beneficial ownership is in the association. Nor has the doctrine laid down in the Topiño case any direct bearing upon the facts proven and the relief sought and granted in this case. The Topiño case turned on the determination of the question of the legal title of the grantor of the conveyance inscribed in the land registry, and the further question of the right of the holder of a duly registered title to be secured in his right of possession as against third persons who do not claim through him, until and unless the inscription of his title has been judicially cancelled. In the case at bar the legal title of the holder of the registered title is not questioned; it is admitted that the members of the association voluntarily obtained the inscription in the name of Cho Jan Ling and that they have no right to have that inscription cancelled; they do not seek such cancellation, and on the contrary they allege and prove that the duly registered legal title to the property is in Cho Jan Ling, but they maintain, and we think that they rightly maintain, that he holds it under an obligation, both express and implied, to deal with it exclusively for the benefit of the members of the association and subject to their will.

Without prejudice to the filing of a more extended opinion hereafter by any of the members of the court, if it be deemed advisable or necessary so to do, the decree entered by the court below should be affirmed with costs of this instance against the appellants. It is so ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Moreland and Trent, 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-1911 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-5600 and 5602 March 2, 1911 - FROEHLICH & KUTTNER v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    018 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. L-6064 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SY-SUIKAO

    018 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. L-6289 March 2, 1911 - JOSE M. ARROYO v. MATIAS GRANADA

    018 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-6300 March 2, 1901

    UNITED STATES v. JACINTA MATA, ET AL.

    018 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. L-6411 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO REYES

    018 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-6423 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SIMEON QUIAOIT

    018 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-6457 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO MADAMBA

    018 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. L-6486 March 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. RAFAEL B. CATOLICO

    018 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-6510 March 2, 191

    UNITED STATES v. POLICARPIO GAVARLAN

    018 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. L-5969 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CEFERINO BENITEZ, ET AL.

    018 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-6050 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIANO RAMOS

    018 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-6059 March 3, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ARCADIO BERNALES

    018 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. L-6330 March 6, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN ORACION, ET AL.

    018 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. L-6493 March 9, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON NER

    018 Phil 534

  • G.R. No. L-5446 March 10, 1911 - MANUEL CEA v. MARIANO P. VILLANUEVA

    018 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. L-6409 March 10, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS CRUZ

    018 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. L-5554 March 11, 1919

    JUAN NOEL v. GERONIMO GODINEZ, ET AL.

    018 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. L-5619 March 11, 1919

    ENGRACIO ORENSE v. CIRILIO JAUCIAN

    018 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-5752 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO SISON

    018 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. L-6102 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO DINEROS

    018 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-6110 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO DUCO

    019 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-6177 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA BRIOSO

    019 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. 6189 March 11, 1911 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. TEODORO LIMJUCO, ET AL.

    019 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-6343 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ

    019 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. L-6445 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SILVINO MADAMBA

    019 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. L-6483 March 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. FILEMON MENDEZ

    019 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-4641 March 13, 1911 - SEMINARY OF SAN CARLOS v. MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU

    019 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. L-5741 March 13, 1911 - ESTANISLAUA ARENAS v. FAUSTO O. RAYMUNDO

    019 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-5358 March 16, 1911 - LEE LIONG v. ISIDORO HIZOLA

    019 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-5729 March 16, 1911 - VICENTE PADILLA v. SIMEON LINSANGAN

    019 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 6219 March 16, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MARTIN DOMINGO

    019 Phil 69

  • G.R. No. L-6407 March 16, 1911 - FRANCISCA FERNANDEZ v. R.M. SHEARER

    019 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-6410 March 16, 1911 - ALEJANDRO TECSON v. LA CORPORACION DE LOS PP. DOMINICOS

    019 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-5174 March 17, 1911 - CANDIDO PASCUAL v. EUGENIO DEL SAZ OROZCO

    019 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-5759 March 17, 191

    WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. v. MATSON

    019 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 6485 March 17, 1911 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ORIA HERMANOS

    019 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. L-6002 March 18, 1911 - AMERICAN SURETY OF NEW YORK, ET AL. v. PRUDENCIO BATANGAN

    019 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-6061 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO PADO, ET AL.

    019 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. L-6082 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO VICENTILLO

    019 Phil 118

  • G.R. No. L-6231 March 18, 1911 - CELESTINO SYTIAR CLEMENTE v. AMBROSIO MARASIGAN

    019 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 6365 March 18, 1911 - CANUTA GUERRERO v. EULALIO SINGSON, ET AL.

    019 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 6469 March 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO SIMBAHAN

    019 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. 6378 March 20, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PELAGIO CAPA, ET AL.

    019 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 6624 March 20, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BANILA

    019 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. L-6160 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. DANIEL NAVARRO

    019 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. L-6230 March 21, 1911 - A.R. HAGER v. ALBERT J. BRYAN

    019 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 6276 March 21, 1911 - TOMASA M. SANTIAGO ET AL. v. MARCELA C. CRUZ

    019 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. 6344 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    019 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 6481 March 21, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. QUINTIN MONDEJAR

    019 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 5688 March 22, 1911 - HENRY BLUM v. MARIANO BARRETTO

    019 Phil 161

  • G.R. No. 6432 March 22, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO BALAGTAS, ET AL.

    019 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-6008 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINA ORTIZ, ET AL.

    019 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. L-6128 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE ARZADON

    019 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 6427 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CONSTANCIO FLORES

    019 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 6491 March 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. TAMPACAN, ET AL.

    019 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. L-5815 March 24, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PALA, ET AL.

    019 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-3026 March 25, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MELCHOR BABASA

    019 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-5333 March 25, 1911 - UY ALOC, ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING, ET AL.

    019 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. L-5640 March 25, 1911 - BENIGNO GOITIA v. CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA

    019 Phil 206

  • G.R. No. L-5843 March 25, 191

    UNITED STATES v. CANUTO GUSTILO

    019 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. L-6016 March 25, 1911 - ANDRES PUNZALAN v. SISENANDO FERRIOLS

    019 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-6019 March 25, 1911 - JUAN N. ARAGON v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    019 Phil 223

  • G.R. No. 6372 March 27, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL MOLINA

    019 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 6354 March 28, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EDUARDO SALAZAR, ET AL.

    019 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-5939 March 29, 1911 - JOSE MARIN v. VALENTINA NACIANCENO

    019 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 6760 March 29, 1911 - NICOLAS E. NUÑEZ v. CHAS. A. LOW

    019 Phil 244

  • G.R. No. 6044 March 30, 1911 - MANUEL M. PADIN v. R. E. HUMPHEMREYS, ET AL.

    019 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 4877 March 31, 1911 - CRISANTO LICHAUCO v. CHO-CHUN CHAC

    019 Phil 258