ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10649 March 1, 1916 - BENITO AFRICA v. KURT W. GRONKE

    034 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 10838 March 1, 1916 - ALFONSA CARLOS ET AL. v. MLA. ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 11148 March 1, 1916 - LIM BUN SU v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 10563 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO BONIFACIO

    034 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. 11262 March 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO T. GIMENEZ

    034 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 7676 March 3, 1916 - JOSE LINO LUNA v. ESTEBAN ARCENAS

    034 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 10265 March 3, 1916 - EUTIQUIANO CUYUGAN v. ISIDORO SANTOS

    034 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10918 March 4, 1916 - WILLIAM FRESSEL ET AL. v. MARIANO UY CHACO SONS & COMPANY

    034 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 10971 March 4, 1916 - BEAUMONT & TENNEY v. BERNARD HERSTEIN

    034 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 11216 March 6, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

    034 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 8473 March 7, 1916 - SANTIAGO YASON v. JULIO MAGSAKAY

    034 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 10437 March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO

    034 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 10729 March 7, 1916 - UY PO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 10793 March 17, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOILO

    034 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 11196 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. EUSTAQUIO YUMUL

    034 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 11321 March 8, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SY BUN KUE

    034 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 10051 March 9, 1916 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. SWEDISH EAST ASIATIC CO.

    034 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 11115 March 10, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SILVESTRE YU TUICO

    034 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10297 March 11, 1916 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK ET AL.

    034 Phil 211

  • G.R. No. 8135 March 13, 1916 - FRED J. LEGARE ET AL. v. ANTONIA CUERQUES

    034 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 10449 March 13, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ACLEMANDOS BLEIBEL

    034 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8092 March 14, 1916 - RUFINA BONDAD ET AL. v. VENANCIO BONDAD ET AL.

    034 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 10578 March 14, 1916 - PACIFIC COMMERCIAL COMPANY v. MAURICIA SOTTO

    034 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 11000 March 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MENDIETA

    034 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 9497 March 15, 1916 - SIMONA GALICIA v. TEODORA NAVARRO

    034 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 11467 March 15, 1916 - NG HIAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 10462 March 16, 1916 - ANDREA DUMASUG v. FELIX MODELO

    034 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 9164 March 17, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VY BO TEC

    034 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 10354 March 17, 1916 - FELIPE DORADO v. AGRIPINO VIRIÑA

    034 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 10718 March 17, 1916 - United States v. Ramon FERRER

    034 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 11464 March 17, 1916 - VICTOR BIUNAS v. BENITO MORA

    034 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. 8954 March 21, 1916 - DOROTEA CABANG v. MARTIN DELFINADO

    034 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 9340 March 21, 1916 - MARGARITO PENALOSA LO INTONG v. ISIDORA JAMITO ET AL.

    034 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 10889 March 21, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. VALERIO MARTINEZ

    034 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 11098 March 21, 1916 - CO PAIN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 11154 March 21, 1916 - E. MERRITT v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    034 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 8979 March 22, 1916 - ADRIANO PANLILIO v. PROVICIAL BOARD OF PAMPANGA ET AL.

    034 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 10978 March 22, 1916 - SIXTO MANLAGNIT v. ALFONSO SANCHEZ DY PUICO

    034 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 11315 March 22, 1916 - DIONISION CHANCO v. CARLOS IMPERIAL

    034 Phil 329

  • G.R. No. 8941 March 23, 1916 - GUILLERMO VELOSO v. LORENZO BECERRA

    034 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 9984 March 23, 1916 - PETRONA JAVIER v. LAZARO OSMEÑA

    034 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 10769 March 23, 1916 - RAYMUNDO MELLIZA v. F. W. TOWLE

    034 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 11119 March 23, 1916 - JUANA RIVERA v. RICHARD CAMPBELL

    034 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 8642 March 24, 1916 - STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. ANTONIO BABASA ET AL.

    034 Phil 354

  • G.R. Nos. 8765 & 10920 March 24, 1916 - PEDRO DIMAGIBA v. ANSELMO DIMAGIBA

    034 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 8806 March 24, 1916 - ALEJANDRO BALDEMOR v. EUSEBIA MALANGYAON

    034 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 9919 March 24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL.

    034 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 9974 March 24, 1916 - CANG YUI v. HENRY GARDENER

    034 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 10560 March 24, 1916 - IN RE: Tan Po Pic v. JUAN L. JAVIER

    034 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 10624 March 24, 1916 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 10663 March 24, 1916 - JOSEPH E. FOX v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    034 Phil 389

  • G.R. No. 11384 March 24, 1916 - ANTONIO GUEVARA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 10045 March 25, 1916 - PHIL. RAILWAY COMPANY v. WILLIAM T. NOLTING

    034 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 10777 March 25, 1916 - ALEJANDRA v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANGASINAN

    034 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11157 March 25, 1916 - POLICARPIO RAMIREZ v. FRANCISCO DE OROZCO

    034 Phil 412

  • G.R. No. 10510 March 27, 1916 - LEONCIO ZARATE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    034 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 10580 March 27, 1916 - TEODORO DE LOS REYES v. MAXIMINO PATERNO

    034 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 11607 March 27, 1916 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV. CO. (LTD.) v. ARMANDO CAMPS Y CAMPS

    034 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. 9845 March 28, 1916 - J. C. RUYMANN v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    034 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 10054 March 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL

    034 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 10264 March 28, 1916 - CHOA TEK HEE v. PHIL. PUBLISHING CO.

    034 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 10595 March 28, 1916 - TEODORO KALAMBAKAL v. VICENTE PAMATMAT ET AL.

    034 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 10810 March 28, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF AGOO v. GABRIEL TAVORA

    034 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10902 March 28, 1916 - SERAPIA DE JESUS v. PABLO PALMA

    034 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 11156 March 28, 1916 - IN RE: DU TEC CHUAN. M. G. VELOSO

    034 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 11363 March 28, 1916 - BERNARDO MOLDEN v. INSULAR COLLETOR OF CUSTOMS

    034 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 11366 March 28, 1916 - INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. GOERGE R. HARVEY

    034 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9550 March 29, 1916 - BACHRACH GARAGE v. HOTCHKISS & CO.

    034 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 10019 March 29, 1916 - THOMAS A. WALLACE v. PUJALTE & CO.

    034 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 10202 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS Ex Rel. MUN. OF CARDONA v. MUN. OF BINANGONAN ET AL.

    034 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 10474 March 29, 1916 - FRANCISCO OSORIO Y GARCIA v. SOLEDAD OSORIO

    034 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 10493 March 29, 1916 - FREDERICK L. COHEN v. BENGUET COMMERCIAL CO. (Ltd.)

    034 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 10751 March 29, 1916 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIA CABALLERO Y APARICI

    034 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. 10778 March 29, 1916 - MUNICIPALITY OF DUMANGAS v. ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF JARO

    034 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 11008 March 29, 1916 - MARIANO REAL ET AL. v. CESAREO MALLARI

    034 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 11068 March 29, 1916 - FERNANDEZ HERMANOS v. HAROLD M. PITT

    034 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 11274 March 29, 1916 - RAFAELA DALMACIO v. ALBERTO BARRETTO

    034 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 11585 March 29, 1916 - PABLO PERLAS v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    034 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 8697 March 30, 1916 - M. GOLDSTEIN v. ALIJANDRO ROCES ET AL.

    034 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 8988 March 30, 1916 - HARTFORD BEAUMONT v. MAURO PRIETO, ET AL.

    041 Phil 670

  •  




     
     

    G.R. No. 9919   March  24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL. <br /><br />034 Phil 370

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 9919. March 24, 1916. ]

    ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA, Applicant-Appellant, v. THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL., objectors-appellees.

    Ramon Salinas for Appellant.

    William A. Kincaid and Thomas L. Hartigan for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    GIFT; "PROPTER NUPTIALS," MADE PRIOR TO ENACTMENT OF CIVIL CODE. — The promise of pledge and gift propter nuptias, made in 1875 and fulfilled and effected on October 15, 1894, is not a simple gift but, as stated in the respective documents, a gift propter nuptias. What was made in 1894 was not a sale by the husband to the wife, but was the fulfillment of the pledge made in 1875 — all in accordance with the legislation in force prior to the Civil Code, as this latter is not applicable to rights which arose from acts performed prior to its enactment.


    D E C I S I O N


    ARELLANO, C.J. :


    Elisa Torres de Villanueva applied to the Court of Land Registration for the registration of two parcels of land; one situated in the barrrio of Santa Rita of the municipality of Batangas, Batangas, contiguous on the north with the land of Damiana Baliuag and Ramon Genato; on the east, with that of the said Genato, a creek without name and the land of Juliana Macatangay; on the south, with the provincial road leading to Bauan; and on the west, with the lands of Leoncio Hernandez, Catalino Bizcocho, Vicente Faraon, and Ramon Genato; the other parcel, situated in the same town of Batangas, contiguous on the north with Callejon M. Salvador; on the east, with Calle P. Prieto; on the south, with Callejon M. Natividad and the land of Lino Endaya; and on the west, with the land of the said Endaya and that of Leocadio Arceo. The first parcel contains 141,932 square meters, and the second, 1,174 square meters.

    This application for registration was opposed by John T. Macleod, as guardian of the property of the incompetent Vicente S. Villanueva, applicant’s husband, and by The Standard Oil Company, as Villanueva’s creditor, possessing an executory judgment in its favor. These objectors aver that the property described in the application belongs to Villanueva.

    The Court of Land Registration decreed the registration on October 11, 1913; but as a new trial was requested it was granted and, after the rehearing, by a judgment of January 17, 1914, the application was denied. The applicant thereupon appealed and is entitled to have the evidence reviewed.

    The facts are the following: On July 6, 1875, Vicente S. Villanueva executed in behalf of his future wife, elisa Torres, a public instrument in which he promised — "to said Elisa Torres, his future wife, en arras and as a gift propter nuptias 2,000 pesos, which sum he acknowledges is comprised wihtin the tenth part of the unencumbered property he now holds and, if it is not therein contained, he assigns that amount out of the property belonging to his mother Doña Josefa del Rosario who has consented to this assignment and in witness thereof has signed this instrument or, at her (Elisa Torres’) option, out of such property as he may in future acquire in order that she (Torres) may enjoy the privilege conferred by this kind of gift or of whichever one may be more favorable and useful to her, should the marriage to which she has agreed take place, she being faithful to him during the same, but on no other condition, etc."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Villanueva’s mother, Josefa del Rosario, did in fact sign this instrument together with him (Exhibit E).

    On July 17, 1875, Villanueva and Torres were married to each other, and on October 3, 1877, the former received his share of his father’s estate. Said share was worth 6,370 pesos 7 reales and 8 cuartos, and included the Santa Rita land in the municipality of Batangas, the first parcel mentioned in the application in the present case (Exhibit C). On March 24, 1884, Villanueva obtained title by composition with the state for this land in the barrio of Santa Rita (Exhibit D).

    On October 15, 1894, Villanueva executed an instrument on stamped paper of the period from 1894 to 1896 of the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That, by virtue of the gift propter nuptias by me executed on March 6, 1875, in behalf of my wife, D.a Elisa Torres, a Peninsular Spaniard, a native of Madrid and a resident of this provincial capital, and I being in lawful possession of certain lands inherited from my deceased parents, D. Gregorio Villanueva and D.a Josefa Rosario; and having no money at present wherewith to pay said debt of two thousand pesos in cash which is the amount of said gift, I have determined to grant and convey to my said wife, D.a Elisa Torres, the ownership and full control of a parcel of agricultural land situated in the barrio of Santa Rita within the limits of this provincial capital (here follows a description of the land). I also cede to my said wife, on account of my said debt, a building lot situated in this town, the area and boundaries of which are shown in its title deeds and on which our dwelling house stands, etc." (Exhibit F.)

    Together with these documents the application for registration was filed. The trial court, weighing the probatory value of the last document (Exhibit F), said that it had been proven beyond doubt, at the hearing, that said instrument was authentic and bore the signature of Vicente S. Villanueva, written therein on the same date the instrument was executed; that the private instrument (Exhibit F) was not one of a gift between husband and wife, but was a conveyance of land in behalf of the applicant, Elisa Torres, by her husband in satisfaction and fulfillment of a contract, propter nuptias, and, in the opinion of the court, was valid. The court proceed to cite articles 1327 to 1333 of the Civil Code in support of his opinion. The oppositions were therefore overruled.

    Said court reiterates these same considerations in his last judgment, now on appeal; but he took into account article. 1458 of the Civil Code and the fact that said two parcels of land, the subject matter of the application, had been attached by the objector, The Standard Oil Company; hence the oppositions were finally sustained, the court saying, however, that "although she was for many years in possession of the lands in question, the court cannot rule that with respect to her husband she held them adversely, in a public and notorious manner and in face of all the world."cralaw virtua1aw library

    But there is no proof whatever that the two parcels of land, the subject matter of the application, were attached by The Standard Oil Company, nor by any person whomsoever. The only evidence on this point to be found in the record is a writ of execution in behalf of The Standard Oil Company for the sum of P1,521.25, issued on February 15, 1910, but there is no evidence to show that this writ was carried into effect by the levy upon any real or personal property belonging to Vicente S. Villanueva by the sheriff. Exactly the contrary appears in the record of case No. 8642 recently decided by us (Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Babasa, ante, p. 354), to wit, that the two parcels of land in the present proceedings were not attached because the judgment creditor was unwilling to give bond. Though it is not shown that this writ was executed, it is enough to consider that there is no proof that the lands were attached, for a writ of execution issued for the purpose of attaching property is not proof that any given property was in fact attached.

    Other evidence presented as proof is the right claimed by John T. Macleod (as "special guardian of the incompetent Vicente S. Villanueva for the special purpose of selling any property which he might be able to find belonging to said Villanueva in order to pay the latter’s debts and obligations") to sell the two parcels of land now in question and announce their sale, a claim which was opposed by the applicant; but it does not follow from this fact that these lands have been attached, or that in any manner they have become so liable for any obligation on the part of Vicente S. Villanueva that they may be sold. J. T. Macleod’s claim was filed in the proceedings for the appointment of a guardian for Vicente S. Villanueva, not in any action to oppose the ownership of the two parcels of land, a matter which is only now brought into question.

    So that the idea of said two parcels of land being attached is erroneous.

    Neither can the judgment appealed from find support in the provisions of article 1458 of the Civil Code, which prohibit the husband and the wife reciprocally from selling property to each other, except in cases where a separation of their property has been decreed. Pursuant to the first of the transient provisions of the Civil Code, "Rights arising under the legislation preceding this code shall be governed by said preceding legislation, even when this code regulates them in another manner or does not recognize the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The pledge (arras) or nuptial gift offered, and subsequently fulfilled or made by Vicente S. Villanueva to his future wife, does not come within the scope of the Civil Code which was not then (in 1875) in force, but is governed by the laws in force at the time. Escriche defines the word arras as: "That which is given as a sign of betrothal and in pledge of the future marriage," or, as said in Law I, Title 11, of the Fourth Partida: "Pledge that is given between parties that the promised marriage will take place." "Among ourselves," he continues, "the husband may give a pledge (arras) to the wife and also the wife to the husband or it may given by their parents in guaranty of the projected marriage, as may be seen by Law 84, Title 18, of the Third Partida, and Law 1, Title 11, of the Fourth Partida. The pledge (arras) may consist of money, or of real or personal property. (Law 84, Title 18, Third Partida, supra). The arras must be really and actually delivered because it is a sort of contract of pledge, as "a pledge given" etc., according to Law 1, Title 11, of the Fourth Partida. This gift or promises may be made before or after the celebration of the marriage, for it is not a simple gift, but a gift propter nuptias, as declared by Antonio Gomez (in Law 50 of Toro, No. 12) and Covarrubias (part 2, On Marriage, Chapter 3, par. 7, No. 144), and this distinction is observed in practice. The amount of the pledge (arras) cannot exceed one-tenth of the present or future unencumbered property of the husband who gives or promises the pledge (Law 1 and 2, Title 2, Book 3, of the Fuero Real, and Law 50 of Toro, which is Law 1, Title 3, book 10, of the Novisima Recopilacion). The excess may be claimed by the donor or his heirs according to said Law 1, Title 2, Book 3, of the Fuero Real."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Gutierrez y Fernandez, the renowned author of the work on Codes or Fundamental Studies on Spanish Civil Law which were taught for so many years in the Santo Tomas University, says:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "As the preceding law speaks of delivered pledges (arras) Law 2 (of Title 11 of the Fourth Partida, above-mentioned) deals with promised pledges.’If anyone should be so poor at the time of his marriage as not to have anything wherewith to give an arras, and should promise to give it from what he might afterwards earn, we order that whenever she (the wife) shall demand of her husband that he deliver the pledge that he promised he shall deliver to her, provided that he shall not give her more than one-tenth of what he may have at the time the pledge is demanded of him.’ If the husband (he continues) proffers a certain amount as a pledge, with the statement that it is contained in his present property or, when not so contained, if he assigns such amount out of the property he may acquire in the future, the offer is valid, provided that the sum pledged does not exceed one-tenth of his property . . . if the law is strictly complied with, no difficulties will arise: . . . what is given or offered, whether taken from the owner’s present property or whether from that which may be acquired up to the day of the delivery, must not exceed one-tenth of such property."cralaw virtua1aw library

    What was effected in 1894 by means of the document executed on stamped paper, in accordance with Law 84, Title 18, of the Third Partida, is not therefore, a simple gift, but a girl propter nuptias; it was not a sale made by the husband to the wife, but was the fulfillment of the pledge promised in 1875, all in conformity with the laws in force, but the provisions of the Civil Code in no wise apply thereto. Therefore, neither in 1875, nor in 1894, could the husband and wife have intended to defraud any creditor, for the record does not show that they then had any creditor.

    The judgment appealed from is reversed, without special finding as to costs. The registration applied for shall be made. So ordered.

    Torres, Moreland and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    Trent, J., reserved his vote.

    G.R. No. 9919   March  24, 1916 - ELISA TORRES DE VILLANUEVA v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW YORD ET AL. <br /><br />034 Phil 370




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED