December 1913 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1913 > December 1913 Decisions >
G.R. No. 8190 December 31, 1913 - ISIDORA VENTURA v. AUREA CONSUELO FELIX, ET AL.
026 Phil 500:
026 Phil 500:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 8190. December 31, 1913. ]
ISIDORA VENTURA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. AUREA CONSUELO FELIX ET AL., opponents-appellees.
Tirso de Irureta Goyena, for Appellant.
Mariano & Bernales, for Appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. SALE OF LAND ALREADY DONATED; DONOR ACQUIRES NO RIGHTS BY REPURCHASE. — Where the plaintiff donated to the defendants certain lands in due form of law and thereafter sold the said lands to a third person reserving to herself the right to repurchase the same within a given time and thereafter and within the time required repurchased said lands, she does not become by such repurchase the owner of the lands in question. Plaintiff not being the owner of the lands, at the time the sale with a right to repurchase was executed, obtained no rights by virtue of said sale, and transferred none. Neither of the parties to that instrument having thereby obtained any interest in the premises, no rights could be obtained by the repurchase.
2. ID.; ID.; EFFECT OR REGISTRATION BY THE DONOR. — The fact that the plaintiff, subsequent to the donation obtained the lands to be registered in her name under Act No. 496 produced no results, it appearing that, thereafter, a motion having been made by the defendants to correct the decree in such way that the title to the lands described therein should be registered in their name, the plaintiff gave her full consent thereto and the decree was accordingly modified in the particulars prayed.
2. ID.; ID.; EFFECT OR REGISTRATION BY THE DONOR. — The fact that the plaintiff, subsequent to the donation obtained the lands to be registered in her name under Act No. 496 produced no results, it appearing that, thereafter, a motion having been made by the defendants to correct the decree in such way that the title to the lands described therein should be registered in their name, the plaintiff gave her full consent thereto and the decree was accordingly modified in the particulars prayed.
D E C I S I O N
MORELAND, J. :
This proceeding arises upon a motion by Isidora Ventura directed to the Court of Land Registration, having for its object the modification of the decree of registration of the title to certain lands described in the motion so that the title shall be registered in the name of said Isidora Ventura.
On the 17th of October, 1908, Isidora Ventura made a donation of the lands in dispute in this action in favor of her grandchildren Aurea Consuelo, Filomena Natividad, Leonarda Concepcion, and Paz Romana, all surnamed Felix, reserving to herself the life use of said premises, she to be responsible for all taxes and ordinary repairs during the time of her occupation. On the same day and within the same instrument the donation was accepted by the recipients thereof. On the 18th of December of the same year the said Isidora Ventura, notwithstanding the donation which had become effective theretofore in favor of her grandchildren, sold the said lands to Ines Feliciano, reserving to herself the right to repurchase the same. On the 30th of June, 1909, a proceeding having been commenced by Isidora Ventura to register the title to said lands, decree was entered therein registering the title in her name, subject to an incumbrance of P1,400 in favor of Concepcion Enriquez, and subject also to the sale with a right to repurchase hereinabove mentioned. Before that decree became final a motion was made for the revision thereof praying that it be vacated and that a new decree be issued registering the title in the name of the those to whom said Isidora Ventura had made the donation. To this motion Isidora Ventura gave her full and free consent and in pursuance thereof the original decree was vacated and a new decree made and entered registering the title to the lands described therein in the name of the donees.
The 18th of December, 1910, being the last day upon which the repurchase could be made by virtue of the terms of the sale with a right to repurchase made between Isidora Ventura and Ines Feliciano, said Isidora Ventura on the 9th of that month paid to Ines Feliciano the sum required by said instrument for the redemption of the lands described by therein. Upon receiving payment said Ines Feliciano executed in favor of Isidora Ventura a resale of the premises described in the sale with a right to repurchase, which was duly acknowledged before a notary public on the 18th of February, 1911. Said instrument was presented to the registrar of titles for registration under the Torrens Law. Registration thereof was refused and this proceeding was brought.
Isidora Ventura pretended in the court below and pretends on this appeal that she is the absolute owner of the lands in litigation by virtue of having redeemed them from the sale which she had made to Ines Feliciano and that she is entitled to have the instrument of resale registered under the Torrens system and declaration of title in her favor.
The learned Court of Land Registration disapproved of this contention and refused the remedy prayed for.
We are clearly of the opinion that the Court of Land Registration correctly decided the case. Isidora Ventura having made in due and legal form a donation of her lands to the donees mentioned in the instrument, and said donation having been duly accepted in accordance with law, title to the lands donated passed immediately to the donees subject to the reserved life interest of the donor. From that time forward Isidora Ventura had no interest in the lands other than that of a life tenants. She had no power to make an absolute sale of the lands in question and, therefore, the sale with a right to repurchase executed in favor of Ines Feliciano on December 18, 1908, was an act wholly beyond her power and conveyed nothing, so far as the donees were concerned, to Ines Feliciano.
Nor did the fact that a decree in the Court of Land Registration was issued in favor of Isidora Ventura registering title to said lands in her name confer any permanent rights or interests. That decree before becoming final was vacated and set aside and another decree substituted in its place wherein and whereby the title of the lands described therein was registered in the name of the rightful owners. No benefits could be claimed, therefore, under the original decree either by Isidora Ventura or by her alleged vendee Ines Feliciano. When, therefore, on the 9th of December, 1910, Isidora Ventura paid to Ines Feliciano the purchase price of the lands as provided in their contract of sale with a right to repurchase, she accomplished nothing more than the payment of a personal debt which she owed, the payment of which in nowise affected the lands in litigation. The title to such lands was not in Ines Feliciano nor did she have any interests therein by virtue of the sale with a right to repurchase executed in her favor by Isidora Ventura. As a necessary consequence, the instrument of resale executed by Ines Feliciano in favor of Isidora Ventura was without force or effect so far as the title of the premises therein described was concerned. Having no title or interest therein, she could convey or reconvey none to Isidora Ventura.
Judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant in this instance.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.
On the 17th of October, 1908, Isidora Ventura made a donation of the lands in dispute in this action in favor of her grandchildren Aurea Consuelo, Filomena Natividad, Leonarda Concepcion, and Paz Romana, all surnamed Felix, reserving to herself the life use of said premises, she to be responsible for all taxes and ordinary repairs during the time of her occupation. On the same day and within the same instrument the donation was accepted by the recipients thereof. On the 18th of December of the same year the said Isidora Ventura, notwithstanding the donation which had become effective theretofore in favor of her grandchildren, sold the said lands to Ines Feliciano, reserving to herself the right to repurchase the same. On the 30th of June, 1909, a proceeding having been commenced by Isidora Ventura to register the title to said lands, decree was entered therein registering the title in her name, subject to an incumbrance of P1,400 in favor of Concepcion Enriquez, and subject also to the sale with a right to repurchase hereinabove mentioned. Before that decree became final a motion was made for the revision thereof praying that it be vacated and that a new decree be issued registering the title in the name of the those to whom said Isidora Ventura had made the donation. To this motion Isidora Ventura gave her full and free consent and in pursuance thereof the original decree was vacated and a new decree made and entered registering the title to the lands described therein in the name of the donees.
The 18th of December, 1910, being the last day upon which the repurchase could be made by virtue of the terms of the sale with a right to repurchase made between Isidora Ventura and Ines Feliciano, said Isidora Ventura on the 9th of that month paid to Ines Feliciano the sum required by said instrument for the redemption of the lands described by therein. Upon receiving payment said Ines Feliciano executed in favor of Isidora Ventura a resale of the premises described in the sale with a right to repurchase, which was duly acknowledged before a notary public on the 18th of February, 1911. Said instrument was presented to the registrar of titles for registration under the Torrens Law. Registration thereof was refused and this proceeding was brought.
Isidora Ventura pretended in the court below and pretends on this appeal that she is the absolute owner of the lands in litigation by virtue of having redeemed them from the sale which she had made to Ines Feliciano and that she is entitled to have the instrument of resale registered under the Torrens system and declaration of title in her favor.
The learned Court of Land Registration disapproved of this contention and refused the remedy prayed for.
We are clearly of the opinion that the Court of Land Registration correctly decided the case. Isidora Ventura having made in due and legal form a donation of her lands to the donees mentioned in the instrument, and said donation having been duly accepted in accordance with law, title to the lands donated passed immediately to the donees subject to the reserved life interest of the donor. From that time forward Isidora Ventura had no interest in the lands other than that of a life tenants. She had no power to make an absolute sale of the lands in question and, therefore, the sale with a right to repurchase executed in favor of Ines Feliciano on December 18, 1908, was an act wholly beyond her power and conveyed nothing, so far as the donees were concerned, to Ines Feliciano.
Nor did the fact that a decree in the Court of Land Registration was issued in favor of Isidora Ventura registering title to said lands in her name confer any permanent rights or interests. That decree before becoming final was vacated and set aside and another decree substituted in its place wherein and whereby the title of the lands described therein was registered in the name of the rightful owners. No benefits could be claimed, therefore, under the original decree either by Isidora Ventura or by her alleged vendee Ines Feliciano. When, therefore, on the 9th of December, 1910, Isidora Ventura paid to Ines Feliciano the purchase price of the lands as provided in their contract of sale with a right to repurchase, she accomplished nothing more than the payment of a personal debt which she owed, the payment of which in nowise affected the lands in litigation. The title to such lands was not in Ines Feliciano nor did she have any interests therein by virtue of the sale with a right to repurchase executed in her favor by Isidora Ventura. As a necessary consequence, the instrument of resale executed by Ines Feliciano in favor of Isidora Ventura was without force or effect so far as the title of the premises therein described was concerned. Having no title or interest therein, she could convey or reconvey none to Isidora Ventura.
Judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant in this instance.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.
