March 1934 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1934 > March 1934 Decisions >
G.R. No. 39596 March 23, 1934 - GOTAUCO & CO. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TAYABAS
059 Phil 756:
059 Phil 756:
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 39596. March 23, 1934.]
"CONSULTA" NO. 1013 OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TAYABAS. GOTAUCO & CO., Applicant-Appellant, v. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF TAYABAS, Oppositor-Appellee.
Godofredo Reyes for Appellant.
Solicitor-General Hilado for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. WRIT OF EXECUTION; INSCRIPTION BY THE REGISTER OF DEEDS. — The register of deeds in this case denied the inscription of a levy of execution because the title to the property was in the name of another person and not in the name of the judgment debtor, no evidence having been submitted that the latter had any interest in the property. It having been afterwards shown that the judicial debtor was one of the heirs of the person in whose name the property appeared, and there being nothing to indicate that the judicial debtor, being sui juris, could not dispose of his interest as an heir in the estate, by a conveyance, thus defeating, pro tanto, the provisions of section 450, Code of Civil Procedure, judgment in this consulta was reversed.
D E C I S I O N
BUTTE, J.:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Fourth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila in a consulta submitted by the register of deeds of Tayabas.
Our decision upon this appeal has been facilitated because both the appellant and the appellee, the latter being represented by the Solicitor-General, agreed that the judgment should be reversed.
On August 12, 1932, when Exhibits A and B were presented to the register, by which a levy of execution against the judgment debtor, Rafael Vilar was made on fifteen tracts of land described in Exhibit B and registered in the name of Florentino Vilar, the register properly denied the inscription of said levy of execution because the title to the lands was in the name of Florentino Vilar and no evidence was submitted that Rafael Vilar had any present or possible future interest in the land. On September 17, 1932, there was presented to him a copy of a petition filed in the Court of First Instance of the province, entitled, "Intestado del Finado Florentino Vilar", from which he could properly infer that Florentino Vilar was a dead and that the judgment debtor Rafael Vilar is one of the heirs of the deceased Florentino Vilar. Although the value of the participation of Rafael Vilar in the estate of Florentino Vilar was indeterminable before the final liquidation of the estate, nevertheless, the right of participation in the estate and the lands thereof may be attached and sold. The real test was laid down by this court in the case of Reyes v. Grey (21 Phil., 73, 76), namely: Does the judgment debtor hold such a beneficial interest in the property that he can sell or otherwise dispose of its for value? Nothing appears in this record to indicate that Rafael Vilar being sui juris could not dispose of his interest or share as heir in the estate of Florentino Vilar. Having this right, he could by a conveyance defeat pro tanto the provisions of section 450 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus deprive the judgment creditor of the benefit of a lawful execution. (See also Consulta No. 441 de los Abogados de Smith, Bell & Co., 48 Phil., 656, 664, 665.)
On October 12, 1932, with the knowledge which he then had, the register should have accepted and inscribed Exhibits A, B and D.
The judgment in this consulta is reversed without special pronouncement as to costs.
Street, Abad Santos, Goddard, and Diaz, JJ., concur.
Our decision upon this appeal has been facilitated because both the appellant and the appellee, the latter being represented by the Solicitor-General, agreed that the judgment should be reversed.
On August 12, 1932, when Exhibits A and B were presented to the register, by which a levy of execution against the judgment debtor, Rafael Vilar was made on fifteen tracts of land described in Exhibit B and registered in the name of Florentino Vilar, the register properly denied the inscription of said levy of execution because the title to the lands was in the name of Florentino Vilar and no evidence was submitted that Rafael Vilar had any present or possible future interest in the land. On September 17, 1932, there was presented to him a copy of a petition filed in the Court of First Instance of the province, entitled, "Intestado del Finado Florentino Vilar", from which he could properly infer that Florentino Vilar was a dead and that the judgment debtor Rafael Vilar is one of the heirs of the deceased Florentino Vilar. Although the value of the participation of Rafael Vilar in the estate of Florentino Vilar was indeterminable before the final liquidation of the estate, nevertheless, the right of participation in the estate and the lands thereof may be attached and sold. The real test was laid down by this court in the case of Reyes v. Grey (21 Phil., 73, 76), namely: Does the judgment debtor hold such a beneficial interest in the property that he can sell or otherwise dispose of its for value? Nothing appears in this record to indicate that Rafael Vilar being sui juris could not dispose of his interest or share as heir in the estate of Florentino Vilar. Having this right, he could by a conveyance defeat pro tanto the provisions of section 450 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus deprive the judgment creditor of the benefit of a lawful execution. (See also Consulta No. 441 de los Abogados de Smith, Bell & Co., 48 Phil., 656, 664, 665.)
On October 12, 1932, with the knowledge which he then had, the register should have accepted and inscribed Exhibits A, B and D.
The judgment in this consulta is reversed without special pronouncement as to costs.
Street, Abad Santos, Goddard, and Diaz, JJ., concur.
