Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > September 1911 Decisions > G.R. No. 6205 September 14, 1911 - LOPE TORRECAMPO v. BALBINO VITERO

020 Phil 221:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 6205. September 14, 1911.]

LOPE TORRECAMPO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALBINO VITERO, Defendant-Appellee.

Albert E. Somersille, for Appellant.

Chicote & Miranda, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. MORTGAGE; FORECLOSURE; EJECTMENT. — R. mortgaged certain lands to T. Later the lands were sold to satisfy a judgment against a third party. The record does not clearly disclose what were the rights of the third party in the lands. Held: That T.’s remedy was an action upon his mortgage and not an action of ejectment to recover the lands.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J.:


On the 12th of November, 1909, the plaintiff commenced an action to recover the possession of the parcel of land described in paragraph one of the complaint, together with the sum of P240 as damages for the illegal possession of said parcel of land and costs. The defendant filed a general and special answer.

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the Hon. V. Nepomuceno, judge of the Eighth Judicial District, rendered a judgment declaring that the plaintiff was without right to the possession of the land in question and absolving the defendant from any liability under the said complaint, with costs against the plaintiff.

From that judgment of the lower court the plaintiff appealed and made the following assignment of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The lower court erred in holding that the possession of the land in question was in Pedro Triunfo and not in Lope Torrecampo, on the date of the public sale by the sheriff."cralaw virtua1aw library

After a careful examination of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, we find that a preponderance of the evidence shows the following facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That on the 29th of May, 1903, one Estefanio Vargas Rojas, mortgaged the land in question (see Exhibit A) to the plaintiff herein for the sum of 200 pesos Mexican currency.

Second. That some time after the said mortgage had been executed and delivered, Pedro Triunfo went into possession of the said land. The plaintiff claims that Pedro Triunfo was in possession of the land as his tenant.

Third. That on the 15th of August, 1907, the defendant herein (Balbino Vitero) commenced an action (No. 783) against the said Pedro Triunfo, for the purpose of recovering the sum of P2,711, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the 1st of February, 1904. At the close of the trial of that cause (No. 783), the Hon. Grant Trent, then judge of the Eighth Judicial District, rendered a judgment on the 13th of November, 1907, in favor of the plaintiff (Vitero) and against the defendant (Triunfo) for the sum of P2,711 Mexican currency with interest, etc., and costs. No appeal was taken from that judgment.

On the 14th of November, 1907, an execution was issued on said judgment and the parcel of land herein in question was attached and later, on or about the 1st of August, 1908, was sold at public auction to the defendant herein. The defendant herein has been in the possession of said parcel of land since that date.

Fourth. That in the month of April, 1908, the plaintiff herein (Torrecampo) commenced an action in the court of the justice of the peace of the pueblo of Bato, against the defendant herein (Vitero) to recover the possession of the land in question, which action was decided against the plaintiff and he did not appeal from said judgment of the justice of the peace.

The contention of the plaintiff herein is that, under his said mortgage of the 29th of May, 1903, he, through his tenant, Pedro Triunfo, was entitled to the possession of the land; that Pedro Triunfo was his tenant only. Pedro Triunfo was not called as a witness during the trial of the cause. The record discloses no reason why he was not. His testimony might have cleared up some of the difficulties which the case presents.

The only witness sworn in behalf of the plaintiff was the plaintiff himself. He swore that Estefanio Vargas Rojas mortgaged the land in question to him on the 29th of May, 1903, and that Pedro Triunfo took possession of the land in question as his tenant.

Exiquio Vargas, son of the said Estefanio Vargas Rojas and Leon Mendoza appeared as witnesses for the defendant. The said Exiquio Vargas testified that his father mortgaged the land in question to Pedro Triunfo and Lope Torrecampo; that Pedro Triunfo was in possession of the said land at the time of the attachment in 1908; that he was the owner of the attached tract of land; that Pedro Triunfo had cultivated the land from 1903 to 1908 and had reaped the crops therefrom; that Pedro Triunfo had not delivered any portion of the said crops to the plaintiff Lope Torrecampo; that he had never seen the said Torrecampo on the said parcel of land.

Leon Mendoza testified that he knew the parties to the present action; that he owned the land adjoining the land in question and had owned said land since 1904; that Pedro Triunfo had farmed the said land and had reaped the crops therefrom.

The record does not clearly disclose upon what theory the land in question was attached and sold as the land of Pedro Triunfo. The plaintiff admits that his right to said land was only the right of a mortgagee There is no attempt to show that he had ever foreclosed his mortgage and had obtained title to the land. The fact that the land was sold as the property of Pedro Triunfo will in no way affect the rights of Lope Torrecampo under his mortgage. If his mortgage is a valid lien upon the property, then, notwithstanding the fact that the land has been sold under the writ of execution subsequent to the creation of his mortgage lien, this will in no way affect his lien upon the property. Of course he must establish the fact that his mortgage was a valid mortgage, constituting a valid lien upon the property in question.

As was said above the record does not clearly disclose what right or interest Pedro Triunfo had in the land in question at the time of the attachment and sale. He presents no objection here to said attachment and sale; neither does the mortgagor, Estefanio Vargas Rojas, present any objection to the land having been sold under the said execution.

Accepting the allegations of the plaintiff with reference to his alleged mortgage upon the land in question as a fact, yet, nevertheless, this fact is not sufficient to justify his recovery of the land in question in the present case. If his mortgage is a valid mortgage upon the land, constituting a prior lien to the attachment and sale, the said attachment and sale in no way affected his lien. He still has his right to enforce his lien against the property in question, in a proper action therefor, but the facts disclosed in the record are not sufficient to justify his physical recovery of the land in question.

Therefore the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs.

Torres, Mapa and Carson, JJ., concur.

Moreland, J., concurs with the dispositive part.




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






September-1911 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 4120 September 1, 1911 - NICOLAS ARBOTANTE v. TAN BUN JUA, ET AL.

    021 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. 6295 September 1, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. IGNACIO CARLOS

    021 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 5609 September 1, 1911 - GREGORIA P. DE CASTRO, ET AL. v. INOCENTE G. ECHARRI

    020 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. 5876 September 1, 1911 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK

    020 Phil 30

  • G.R. No. 6085 September 1, 1911 - PEDRO VAZQUEZ v. JOAQUIN VILLADELGADO, ET AL.

    020 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 6088 September 1, 1911 - GEORGE G. TAYLOR v. JAMES L. PIERCE

    020 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 6329 September 1, 1911 - JOHN M. SWITZER v. MUNICIPALITY OF CEBU

    020 Phil 111

  • G.R. No. 6346 September 1, 1911 - RAFAEL L. ROMERO, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    020 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. 6438 September 1, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. DALMACIO PAZ, ET AL.

    020 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 6517 September 1, 1911 - A. V. MANS v. C. F. GARRY

    020 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 6637 September 1, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. POH CHI

    020 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 6659 September 1, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. BAGGAY, JR.

    020 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 6706 September 1, 1911 - FERNANDO MAPA v. MARIA DEL PILAR CHAVES

    020 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 6738 September 1, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN FEDERIZO

    020 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 6740 September 1, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PRIMO SAMONTE

    020 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 6536 September 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CALIXTO SURLA

    020 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 6692 September 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE LUMAMPAO

    020 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. 5850 September 5, 1911 - MARIANO RIOSA v. TOMAS VALENCIANO

    020 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 6608 September 5, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN CASIPONG, ET AL.

    020 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 6736 September 5, 1911 - ALEJANDRA CARLOS v. ANTONIO RAMIL

    020 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 6540 September 6, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. CAYETANO TOBIAS

    020 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 7150 September 6, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO BORROMEO, ET AL.

    020 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 6395 September 8, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. VALENTIN FONSECA, ET AL.

    020 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. 6619 September 8, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO TABANDA

    020 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. 6695 September 8, 1911 - RITA CATALAN v. ROSARIO CONDE

    020 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. 6123 September 11, 1911 - RUPERTA PASCUAL v. ALEJANDRA MINA, ET AL.

    020 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 6327 September 11, 1911 - MANZANO MASSAOAY v. ESTEBAN BLASI

    020 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 6504 September 11, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. DIONISIO TAPAN, ET AL.

    020 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 6314 September 12, 1911 - ESTEFANIA EVANGELISTA v. LEONCIO NICOLAS, ET AL.

    020 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 6541 September 12, 1911 - GASPAR ZURBITO v. PATROCINIO BAYOT

    020 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 6205 September 14, 1911 - LOPE TORRECAMPO v. BALBINO VITERO

    020 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 6447 September 14, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. BLAS ALMAZAN, ET AL.

    020 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. 6525 September 14, 1911 - LORENZO MARZON v. JULIANO UDTUJAN, ET AL.

    020 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 6635 September 14, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MORO JAKAN TUCKO

    020 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. 5837 September 15, 1911 - GATALINO GALLEMIT v. CEFERINO TABILIRAN

    020 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 5864 September 16, 1911 - RAMON DOMINISAG v. MANUEL MANCILLA

    020 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 6467 September 16, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. SECUNDINO MENDEZONA

    020 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 6751 September 16, 1911 - JOSE DURAN v. MARIA ARBOLEDA

    020 Phil 253

  • G.R. No. 5674 September 22, 1911 - EMILIANO SORIANO v. BASILISA TALENS, ET AL.

    020 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 6708 September 22, 1911 - MARIA YADAO v. MARCELO YADAO

    020 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 6305 September 26, 1911 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ROMANA GAUZON, ET AL.

    020 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 6906 September 27, 1911 - FLORENTINO RALLOS, ET AL. v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    020 Phil 269