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. 10437  March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO<br /><br />034 Phil 148

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 10437. March 7, 1916. ]

    JESUSA LAUREANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EUGENIO KILAYCO, Defendant-Appellee.

    W. A. Kincaid and T. L. Hartigan for Appellant.

    No appearance for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    EVIDENCE; PROOF OF MORTGAGE. — Oral evidence is admissible to show that a conveyance of real estate and personal property absolute in form was in fact a mortgage.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORELAND, J. :


    The complaint in this action alleges that in the 12th of July, 1913, the plaintiff executed and delivered to the defendant a conveyance of certain lands described in the complaint, together with 186 shares of common stock of the corporation known as El Hogar Filipino. The consideration stated in the conveyance was P49,550. The complaint also alleges that "not a cent of the said consideration was ever paid to plaintiff or was agreed or intended to be paid; that at the time the conveyance was executed and delivered, and as part thereof and of said transaction, the defendant agreed to hold and administer the property, to make certain payments for and on behalf of the plaintiff out of the rents and profits thereof, and to reconvey the property therein described on demand." Among those which plaintiff alleges defendant agreed to make were certain payments to be made monthly to El Hogar Filipino for the reduction of the debt which plaintiff at that time owed to said corporation; that sometime after the execution and delivery of the conveyance plaintiff demanded of defendant a reconveyance of the property which defendant agreed to execute; that, instead of so doing, he executed and offered to deliver to plaintiff a document entirely different in terms and tenor from that which he had agreed to execute and deliver and which she demanded; that plaintiff refused to accept such instrument in fulfillment of defendant’s agreement; that the defendant has repeatedly promised to reconvey to plaintiff as agreed the property so purchased, but has never complied with his promises. Plaintiff further alleges that the defendant has neglected and refused to make the payments to El Hogar Filipino which he agreed to make and that he has collected the rents, issues and profits of said property and converted them to his own use and benefit in violation of his agreement and to the damage of plaintiff.

    On the trial of the action the plaintiff was asked questions tending to bring out the facts alleged in the complaint but objections were interposed to such questions on the ground that the evidence offered was incompetent as it would tend to vary or modify the terms of a written agreement. These objections were sustained and the plaintiff duly excepted. All evidence tending to establish the cause of action alleged in the complaint having been excluded, the court found in favor of the defendant and dismissed the complaint on the merits. This appeal was taken from that judgment and all of the exceptions taken on the trial are presented by that appeal.

    The only question presented for our consideration by the brief of appellant (no brief was filed by the appellee) is whether or not plaintiff had the right to prove the parol agreement existing between her and the appellee by virtue of which defendant agreed to reconvey on demand. It is claimed by the appellant, in accordance with the allegations of her complaint, that she received no consideration whatever for the transfer of the properties described in the conveyance referred to, it being verbally agreed between the parties at the time of the conveyance that the appellee should take possession of and administer the properties, secure such income therefrom as circumstances would permit, and use it to pay the debt which appellant owed to El Hogar Filipino; and that he should reconvey the property whenever appellant should demand it. Is parol evidence admissible to prove such an arrangement in view of the fact that the original conveyance is in writing, is absolute in its face, and contains no conditions whatever?

    We are inclined to the opinion that the question presented for our determination does not involve, strictly speaking, the law relating to the introduction of parol evidence for the purpose of changing or modifying the terms of a written instrument; and that the case does not fall within the prohibitive provisions of section 285 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lays down the law of the Philippine Islands with regard to the subject. The evidence excluded was not offered for the purpose of varying the terms of the conveyance between the parties. It was offered, rather, to show a contemporaneous collateral agreement by which the conveyance could be defeated and terminated. It is a well known principle of law that oral evidence is admissible to show that a conveyance absolute in form was in fact a mortgage; and in the case of Reeves v. Abercrombie (108 Ala., 535, 539), it was said that "the right to establish by parol [evidence] the defeasible character of an absolute written conveyance is, [however, now] too well fixed [in our jurisprudence] to be questioned." In the case of Russell v. Southard (12 How., 139), the court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It is insisted, on behalf of the defendants, that this question is to be determined by inspection of the written papers alone, oral evidence not being admissible to contradict, vary, or add to, their contents. But we have no doubt of every material fact known to the parties when the deed and memorandum were executed. This is clear, both upon principle and authority. To insist in what was really a mortgage, as a sale, is in equity a fraud, which cannot be successfully practiced, under the shelter of any written papers, however precise and complete they may appear to be."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The court further said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "In examining this question it is of great importance to inquire whether the consideration was adequate to induce a sale. When no fraud is practiced, and no inequitable advantage taken of pressing wants, owners of property do not sell it for a consideration manifestly inadequate, and, therefore, in the cases on this subject great stress is justly laid upon the fact that what is alleged to have been the price bore no proportion to the value of the thing said to have been sold."cralaw virtua1aw library

    With respect to the production of parol evidence to show lack of consideration it has been said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It is well settled that the true consideration of a deed may be proved by parol evidence, and that a deed absolute on its face may be shown to have been executed in fact as a security for money and for that reason be treated as a mortgage. The rule does not depend upon the manner of statement of the consideration in the deed. The right is a substantial one, not to be varied or defeated by any form of expression or character of recitals contained in the instrument itself." (McLean v. Ellis, 79 Tex., 398; 15 S.W., 394.)

    "Parol evidence is admissible in equity to show that a deed of conveyance, absolute upon its face, was intended as a mortgage, and where it is shown that such a conveyance has been executed to secure the payment of money, equity will treat it as a mortgage. The court looks beyond the terms of the instrument to the real transaction, or what was intended to be effected by the parties, and any evidence, whether written or oral, tending to show this, is admissible. The admission of oral testimony for such purpose is not a violation of the rule which precludes such admission for the purpose of varying or contradicting the terms of a written instrument; that rule has reference to the language to the language of which the instrument is the repository, but this permits an inquiry into the objects of the parties in executing and receiving the instruments and equity exercises its jurisdiction to carry out such object and to prevent fraud and imposition and to promote justice." (First Nat., Bank v. Ashmead, 23 Fla., 379; 2 So., 657, 665.)

    "Within this rule, a grantor may testify as to facts and circumstances showing that the deed was but a mortgage, or that the grantee agreed to resell and reconvey upon the performance of certain conditions." (Beroud v. Lyons, 85 Iowa, 482; 52 N.W., 486.)

    In this connection it has also been held that while prima facie that consideration clause of a deed name s the true consideration, nevertheless, it is always open to explanation for almost every purpose except to defeat the operative words of the transfer (Hamaker v. Coons, 117 Ala., 603; Hoover v. Binkley, 66 Ark., 645; Sullivan v. Lear, 23 Fla., 463; Taylor v. Crokett, 123 Mo., 300; St. Louis, I.M. & So. Ry. Co. v. Berry, 86 Ark., 309; Spence v. Central Accident Ins. Co., 236 Ill., 444; Ellis v. Lehman, 48 Tex. Civ. App., 308); and it has been frequently held that although the deed acknowledged the receipt of the consideration, parol evidence is admissible to show that it has not, in fact, been received, if the purpose of the party seeking to introduce the evidence is not to invalidate the deed as a conveyance.

    The purpose of the introduction of parol evidence to show a lack of consideration is not for the purpose of showing the invalidity of the conveyance but is, rather, to reinforce the claim that there was an agreement t reconvey, it being urged that, if the transfer was utterly without consideration, it would lend more color to the contention of the appellant that there was an agreement to reconvey.

    We are of the opinion that parol evidence should have been admitted to show the contemporaneous oral agreement between the parties set out in appellant’s complaint. We make the suggestion that such amendment to the pleadings should be allowed, if requested, as will, in the judgment of the Court of First Instance, serve the ends of justice.

    The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. So ordered.

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

    G.R. No. 10437  March 7, 1916 - JESUSA LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO<br /><br />034 Phil 148




    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