November 1917 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > November 1917 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-11340 November 10, 1917 - MELECIO MORALES v. ADOLFO MACANDOG
037 Phil 132:
037 Phil 132:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-11340. November 10, 1917. ]
MELECIO MORALES, accompanied by his curator ad litem Isidoro Paraiso, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ADOLFO MACANDOG, VALERIANA MORALES and her husband, LEOCADIO ARELLANO, Defendants-Appellants.
Manly, Goddard & Lockwood for Appellants.
C.M. Villareal for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. PROPERTY; RECOVERY OF POSSESSION. — The case at bar distinguished from the case of Llacer v. Muños de Bustillo and Achaval (12 Phil., Re., 328), on the ground that in that case the plaintiff sought to avoid the consequences of a deed executed by his predecessor in interest, while in the case at bar, plaintiff seeks to recover possession of the land in question on the strength of his own title and on the ground that the defendant is in possession and claims title by virtue of a deed fraudulently executed in his favor, by one who was not the real owner and who had no authority to execute the instrument purporting to convey the land.
D E C I S I O N
CARSON, J. :
The evidence of record, read together with the contentions of counsel for the appellant in his printed brief, discloses nothing which would justify us in disturbing the findings of the trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses testify, as to the degree of credit which should be accorded the testimony submitted on behalf of the plaintiff; and we are unable to say that the finding of fact as set forth in the opinion of the trial judge are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence of record.
Our conclusion in this regard practically dispose of all the substantial contentions of counsel for the appellant; but we may add with relation to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the plaintiff, that the judgment being in favor of the plaintiff, we are not disposed to hear the defendant to object for the first time to the judgment on the ground of such alleged irregularities after it had been rendered against him; and perhaps we should further add that the doctrine announced in the case of Llacer v. Muños de Bustillo and Achaval (12 Phil. Rep., 328) has no bearing upon the case at bar, the facts in that case being that the plaintiff sought to avoid the consequences of a deed executed by his predecessor in interest, while in the case at bar, the plaintiff seeks to recover possession of the land in question on the strength of his own title and on the ground that the defendant is in possession and claims title by virtue of a deed, fraudulently executed in his favor, by one who was not the real owner and who had no authority to execute the instrument purporting to convey the land.
The judgment entered in the court below should be and is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J. Johnson, Araullo, Street, and Malcolm, JJ., concur.
Our conclusion in this regard practically dispose of all the substantial contentions of counsel for the appellant; but we may add with relation to the alleged irregularities in the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the plaintiff, that the judgment being in favor of the plaintiff, we are not disposed to hear the defendant to object for the first time to the judgment on the ground of such alleged irregularities after it had been rendered against him; and perhaps we should further add that the doctrine announced in the case of Llacer v. Muños de Bustillo and Achaval (12 Phil. Rep., 328) has no bearing upon the case at bar, the facts in that case being that the plaintiff sought to avoid the consequences of a deed executed by his predecessor in interest, while in the case at bar, the plaintiff seeks to recover possession of the land in question on the strength of his own title and on the ground that the defendant is in possession and claims title by virtue of a deed, fraudulently executed in his favor, by one who was not the real owner and who had no authority to execute the instrument purporting to convey the land.
The judgment entered in the court below should be and is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J. Johnson, Araullo, Street, and Malcolm, JJ., concur.
