February 1917 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > February 1917 Decisions >
G.R. No. 11693 February 8, 1917 - EDUARDO GANA v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LAGUNA, ET AL.
036 Phil 236:
036 Phil 236:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 11693. February 8, 1917. ]
EDUARDO GANA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LAGUNA and FELICIDAD YATCO, Defendants-Appellees.
Felix Ferrer for Appellant.
Jose del Castillo for Appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES; BURDEN OF PROOF. — When it is made to appear that a presumption of fraud with relation to a deed of conveyance of property arises under the provisions of the second paragraph of article 1297 of the Civil Code, the burden of proof rests upon him who relies on the deed of conveyance to establish by affirmative evidence that the conveyance was actually made for a good consideration (a titulo oneroso) and that the transaction was not tainted with fraud.
D E C I S I O N
CARSON, J. :
We are of opinion that plaintiff in these proceedings failed utterly to overcome the presumption of the fraudulent execution of the chattel mortgage on which he relies; a presumption which arises under the provisions of article 1297 of the Civil Code, it appearing that the chattel mortgage was executed in his favor by his brother on May 5, 1913, three days after a money judgment had been entered against his brother and in favor of Felicidad Yatco, one of the defendants in these proceedings. In order to overcome this presumption of fraud, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to establish affirmatively that the chattel mortgage was executed in good faith for a good and valuable consideration (a titulo oneroso) and we are satisfied that not only did he fail to do so, but that all the circumstances surrounding the execution of this instrument, as disclosed by the record in this case, tend very strongly to confirm the presumption that the chattel mortgage was executed by the brother of the plaintiff with intent to defraud his judgment creditor. (Cf. Penas v. Mitchell, 9 Phil. Rep., 587.)
We conclude that the judgment entered in the court below should be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.
Torres, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.
We conclude that the judgment entered in the court below should be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.
Torres, Moreland, Trent and Araullo, JJ., concur.
