Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1916 > February 1916 Decisions > G.R. No. 8271 February 26, 1916 - PETRONILA MARQUEZ v. FLORENTINA SACAY

034 Phil 1:



[G.R. No. 8271. February 26, 1916. ]

PETRONILA MARQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FLORENTINA SACAY, Defendant-Appellant.

Claro Reyes Panlilio for Appellant.

Teodoro Gonzalez for Appellee.


REGISTRATION OF LAND; FRAUD. — Held: Under the facts stated in the opinion, that the registration of the land involved had not been obtained by fraud.



On the 13th of September, 1911, the defendant-appellant presented a motion in the Court of Land Registration to have a decree of registration theretofore issued under the Torrens system set aside, upon the ground that it had been obtained by fraud. The motion was based upon section 38 of Act No. 496. Said motion was denied after hearing by the court a quo, on the 21st of October, 1911.

On the 28th of December, 1911, the defendant presented another motion, after having appealed from the decision of the court upon the first motion, asking that said decree of registration be reopened. This motion was based upon the provisions of section 110 of Act No. 496. Said second motion was also denied upon the 4th of January, 1912. From the ruling of the court a quo upon said motion, the defendant-appellant appealed to this court and assigned as errors the

"1. That the auxiliary judge of the Court of Land Registration, the Honorable Pedro Concepcion, erred in holding that Antonio Canlapan, to whom the composition title was issued, is in no wise identified as Antonio Canlapan the ascendant of the minor Felicidad Garcia, by whom the land was conveyed that is the subject of case No. 6835.

"2. That said judge erred in holding that fraud was not proven, as the right of succession of Felicidad Garcia to Antonio Canlapan had not been proven; and that Basilio Garcia and Tomasa Canlapan had died.

"3. That he likewise erred in denying appellant’s motion for the inclusion of her right in the registration of the land as an adverse claimant, on account of the opposition of Paulina A. Policarpio.

"4. That he also erred in overruling the motion for a rehearing."cralaw virtua1aw library

Before discussing the said alleged errors, it may be well to state the facts which gave origin to said motion. The facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. On the 28th of October, 1910, the said Petronila Marquez presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration, for the purpose of having registered, under the Torrens system, a certain parcel of land particularly described in paragraph 1 of said petition.

2. Petronila Marquez alleged in her petition that she had obtained said parcel of land by purchase from Gregoria Canlapan, Cecilia Canlapan, Juliana Canlapan, Basilia Canlapan, Geronimo Canlapan, and Carlos Canlapan; that said persons, her said vendors, had obtained title to said land by inheritance from their deceased father, Don Antonio Canlapan.

3. That by Exhibit A presented by the petitioner, it appears that the said Don Antonio Canlapan had obtained said parcel of land "por composicion con el estado," on the 19th of August, 1891. That said "composicion con el estado" had been duly registered in the registry of property of the Province of Bulacan on the 18th of January, 1892. (See Exhibit A.)

4. That Don Antonio Canlapan died in the year 1907 or 1908, leaving a widow and children as his surviving heirs.

5. That on the 26th day of October, 1908, the heirs of Don Antonio Canlapan sold and delivered the parcel of land in question to Petronila Marquez, for the sum of P2,185. (See Exhibit B.)

6. That due notice was given of the pendency of the petition of the said Petronila Marquez, as required by law. That no opposition whatever was presented and on the 17th of March, 1911, the Honorable Pedro Concepcion, one of the judges of the Court of Land Registration, after having heard the proof presented by the petitioner, decreed the registration of said parcel of land to Petronila Marquez, and issued a certificate to her in accordance with the provisions of the Torrens system of land registration. (See pages 38-42, record.)

7. That after the presentation of the petition for registration by the plaintiff (the 28th of October, 1910), the record shows that the plaintiff, on the 2d of November, 1910, sold under a pacto de retro, the land in question to Paulina A. Policarpio, under the condition that the same might be repurchased after a period of two years from the said 2d of November, 1910; that the said sale under the said pacto de retro was duly noted upon the certificate of registration issued to the plaintiff.

That on the 9th of September, 1911, by means of a notarial document, the said pacto de retro was converted into an absolute sale of said property by the plaintiff to the said Paulina A. Policarpio, in consideration of the sum of P500 in addition to the amount which had originally been paid by the said Policarpio to the plaintiff. (See document Exhibit Z.)

9. That the petition of the defendant and appellant herein, praying that the registration ordered in the name of Petronila Marquez be opened up and set aside, was not presented until after said land had been sold by her to Paulina A. Policarpio, as appears in paragraph 8 above. The title which had been registered in the name of Petronila Marquez had been transferred to Paulina A. Policarpio, a third party, before the presentation of the petition under discussion. So far as the record shows, Paulina A. Policarpio was an innocent purchaser for value, and was therefore protected in her right by virtue of the provisions of section 38 of Act No. 496.

With reference to the first assignment of error, the evidence which consisted solely of baptismal certificates, without any explanation whatever, did not satisfy the court a quo that the relationship of the petitioner in the present action, which she contends existed between her and the former owners of the land in question, did in fact, exist. We have examined said baptismal certificates and, standing alone, there is nothing in them which conclusively supports the contention of the Appellant. We find no reason, therefore, for modifying the judgment of the lower court for any arguments in support of the first assignment of error.

With reference to the second assignment of error, there is not the slightest evidence in the record which shows or tends to show that Petronila Marquez defrauded or attempted to defraud the defendant and Appellant. There is no evidence which shows or tends to show that she had the slightest knowledge of the existence of the pretended right which the defendant now claims.

Neither do we find any justification in the record for modifying the conclusions of the lower court upon the third assignment of error.

And, moreover, it may be said, without reference to any of the assignments of error, that, in view of the fact that Paulina A. Policarpio is an innocent purchaser, for a valuable consideration, she is fully protected in her right, title, and interest in the land in question by virtue of the express provisions of section 38 of Act No. 496.

In view of all of the foregoing, we are of the opinion and so decree that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Trent, JJ., concur.

Moreland, J., concurs in the result.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

February-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10173 February 1, 1916 - MARIANO VELASCO & Co. v. GOCHUICO CO.

    033 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 10935 February 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO E. VELASQUEZ

    033 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 9184 February 2, 1916 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. GEORGE C. SELLNER

    033 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 10129 February 2, 1916 - CLARA TAMBUNTING v. EDILBERTO SANTOS

    033 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 10744 February 2, 1916 - ANTONIO RAYMUNDO v. AMBROSIO CARPIO

    033 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 10841 February 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE LOS SANTOS

    033 Phil 397


    033 Phil 406


    033 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 10121 February 3, 1916 - MAURICIA SOTO v. DOMINGA ONG

    033 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 10107 February 4, 1916 - CLARA CEREZO v. ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC COMPANY

    033 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 8769 February 5, 1916 - SMITH, BELL & CO. v. MARIANO MARONILLA

    041 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 9802 February 5, 1916 - TEC BI & CO. v. THE CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA

    041 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 10345 February 5, 1916 - KUENZLE & STREIFF (LTD.) v. JUAN VILLANUEVA

    041 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 10078 February 5, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELINO DACAIMAT

    033 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 9038 February 7, 1916 - PEDRO MAGAYANO v. TOMAS GAPUZAN

    033 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 10280 February 7, 1916 - ENGRACIO CORONEL v. CENON ONA

    033 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 8166 February 8, 1916 - JORGE DOMALAGAN v. CARLOS BOLIFER

    033 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 10548 February 9, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNO DE IRO

    033 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10104 February 10, 1916 - ROMANA CORTES v. FLORENCIO G. OLIVA

    033 Phil 480


    033 Phil 485


    033 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9596 February 11, 1916 - MARCOS MENDOZA v. FRANCISCO DE LEON

    033 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 11048 February 11, 1916 - LIM PUE v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 11081 February 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MORO MOHAMAD

    033 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 9977 February 12, 1916 - DOROTEO KARAGDAG v. FILOMENA BARADO

    033 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 11065 February 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LOPE K. SANTOS

    033 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 9966 February 14, 1916 - TRINIDAD DE AYALA v. ANTONIO M. BARRETTO

    033 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 10427 February 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SOY CHUY

    033 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 10666 February 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. QUE SIANG

    033 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. 10951 February 14, 1916 - K.S. YOUNG v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    033 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 8914 February 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. RAYMUNDO ZAPANTA

    033 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 9277 February 15, 1916 - ANDRES CALON y MARTIN v. BALBINO ENRIQUEZ

    033 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 9822 February 15, 1916 - BENIGNO SOLIS v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

    033 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 10722 February 18, 1916 - DOLORES A IGNACIO v. FELISA MARTINEZ

    033 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. 10516 February 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. AGAPITO SOLAÑA

    033 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 10323 February 21, 1916 - PETRA DE CASTRO v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF BOCAUE

    033 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 9204 February 24, 1916 - LAZARO PASCUAL v. FELIPE PASCUAL

    033 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 10531 February 25, 1916 - JULIANA MELIZA v. PABLO ARANETA

    033 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 10672 October 26, 1915


    033 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 8271 February 26, 1916 - PETRONILA MARQUEZ v. FLORENTINA SACAY

    034 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10934 February 26, 1916 - PP. AGUSTINOS RECOLETOS v. GALO LICHAUCO ET AL.

    034 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 10675 February 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. YAP TIAN JONG

    034 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9665 February 29, 1916 - IN RE: AMBROSIO RABALO v. GABINA RABALO

    034 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 10244 February 29, 1916 - SANTIAGO CRUZADO v. ESTEFANIA BUSTOS

    034 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. 11006 February 29, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO BALBIN

    034 Phil 38

  • G.R. Nos. 11055 & 11056 February 29, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL ANG

    034 Phil 44