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
 

   
April-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 43850 April 3, 1939 - JOSE C. BUCOY v. JOHN R. MCFIE, ET AL.

    067 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45080 April 3, 1939 - FLORENCIA DUQUILLO v. PAZ BAYOT

    067 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 45112 April 3, 1939 - APOLONIA GOMEZ v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC.

    067 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45144 April 3, 1939 - M. E. GREY v. INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY

    067 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 45696 April 3, 1939 - PLACIDA PASCASIO, ET AL. v. BENITO GUIDO

    067 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. 45159 April 4, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO MA. DE MORETA

    067 Phil 146

  • G.R. Nos. 46231-46235 April 4, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULO B. GONZALEZ

    067 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46239 April 4, 1939 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL v. ROSENDO MARCOS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 46247 April 4, 1939 - SAN JUAN DE DIOS HOSPITAL v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF SAN RAFAEL, ET AL.

    067 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 45177 April 5, 1939 - JOSE MARTINEZ v. SANTOS B. PAMPOLINA

    067 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. 45193 April 6, 1939 - EMILIE ELMIRA RENEE BOUDARD, ET AL. v. STEWART EDDIE TAIT

    067 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 46510 April 5, 1939 - ORIENT PROTECTIVE ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION v. ANTONIO RAMOS

    067 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 45517 April 5, 1939 - TARCILA L. TRINIDAD v. ORIENT PROTECTIVE ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION

    067 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. 45738 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMIANO CELORICO

    067 Phil 185

  • G.R. No. 45748 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCO VERA REYES

    067 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. 45955 April 5, 1939 - TEODORICA R. VIUDA DE JOSE v. JULIO VELOSO BARRUECO

    067 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. 46144 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO CINCO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 196

  • G.R. No. 46409 April 5, 1939 - INSULAR MOTORS INCORPORATED v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 46478 April 6, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GO UG, ET AL.

    067 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 43822 April 10, 1939 - PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. HONGKONG & SHANCHAI BANKING CORPORATION

    067 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 45152 April 10, 1939 - HILARIA SIKAT v. JOHN CANSON

    067 Phil 207

  • G.R. No. 45170 April 10, 1939 - ARSENIO DE VERA, ET AL. v. CLEOTILDE GALAURAN

    067 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45171 April 10, 1939 - EUGENIO VERAGUTH, ET AL. v. ROSARIO MONTILLA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 45192 April 10, 1939 - IN RE: VICENTE J. FRANCISCO

    067 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 45200 April 10, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. APOLONIA S. ZAPANTA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 45246 April 10, 1939 - CARLOS N. FRANCISCO v. PARSONS HARDWARE CO.

    067 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45273 April 10, 1939 - LUNETA MOTOR CO. v. FEDERICO ABAD

    067 Phil 236

  • G.R. No. 45295 April 10, 1939 - RUFO ARCENAS v. INOCENCIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45302 April 10, 1939 - GERVASIA ENCARNACION, ET AL. v. PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF RIZAL, ET AL.

    067 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 45337 April 10, 1939 - MANILA MOTOR CO. v. ANICETO MARAÑA

    067 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. 45381 April 10, 1939 - FELIX BENEDICTO v. PERFECTO ESPINO

    067 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 45898 April 10, 1939 - JOVITA JOVEN v. MARCELO T. BONCAN, ET AL.

    067 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 46530 April 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO RABAO

    067 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 45123 April 12, 1939 - AGRIPINO INFANTE v. MARCOS DULAY

    067 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. 45165 April 12, 1939 - GREGORIA JIMENEZ v. GEROMIMO JIMENEZ

    067 Phil 263

  • G.R. No. 45277 April 12, 1939 - TORIBIO TEODORO v. JUAN POSADAS

    067 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. 45306 April 12, 1939 - JOSUE SONCUYA v. LA URBANA

    067 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 45365 April 12, 1939 - FULTON IRON WORKS CO. v. SIDNEY C. SCHWARZKOPF

    067 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 45375 April 12, 1939 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. GLORIA BALDELLO

    067 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 45454 April 12, 1939 - EULALIO GARCIA v. SINFOROSA C. DAVID, ET AL.

    067 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 45515 April 12, 1939 - TOLARAM MENGHRA v. BULCHAND ARACHAND, ET AL.

    067 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. 45742 April 12, 1939 - TIBURCIO MAMUYAC v. PEDRO ABENA

    067 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 45752 April 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN PERALTA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 293

  • G.R. No. 45821 April 12, 1939 - SOCONY-VACUUM CORPORATION v. LEON C. MIRAFLORES

    067 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. 45899 April 12, 1939 - RAYMUNDO VARGAS v. NIEVES TANCIOCO,, ET AL.

    067 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 45405 April 13, 1939 - IN RE: ANTONIO FRANCO

    067 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 45529 April 13, 1939 - VENANCIO QUEBLAR v. LEONARDO GARDUÑO

    067 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 46428 April 13, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO TUMLOS

    067 Phil 320

  • G.R. No. 45253 April 14, 1939 - FIDELITY AND SURETY COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. ISABELO G. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 45310 April 14, 1939 - MARCOS J. ROTEA v. FRANCISCA DELUPIO

    067 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 45400 April 14, 1939 - MARCIANA LUNASCO v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    067 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 45536 April 14, 1939 - PEDRO AMANTE v. SERAFIN P. HILADO

    067 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 45601 April 14, 1939 - TAVERA-LUNA v. MARIANO NABLE

    067 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 45687 April 14, 1939 - CARIDAD ESTATE OF CAVITE, INC. v. VICENTE AVILA

    067 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 45931 April 14, 1939 - URBANO SERRANO v. VICENTE DE LA CRUZ

    067 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 45340 April 15, 1939 - MARCELA BALLESTEROS v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

    067 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 45430 April 15, 1939 - TERESA GARCIA v. LUISA GARCIA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 45643 April 16, 1939 - RAYMUNDO CORDERO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA, Respondents.

    067 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 45576 April 19, 1939 - MAXIMIANO FUENTES v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF PILA, LAGUNA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. 45248 April 18, 1939 - VICENTE REYES VILLAVICENCIO v. SANTIAGO QUINIO

    067 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 45418 April 18, 1939 - AMBROSIO RAMOS, ET AL. v. H. A. GIBBON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. 45701 April 18, 1939 - TIRSO GARCIA v. TY CAMCO SOBRINO

    067 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. 45721 April 18, 1939 - MELCHOR LAMPREA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 45803 April 18, 1939 - VICENTA C. VDA. DE GUIDOTE v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS

    067 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. 45923 Abril 18, 1939 - CHOA FUN v. EL SECRETARIO DEL TRABAJO

    067 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 46015 April 18, 1939 - LIBERATO JIMENEZ v. INES DE CASTRO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 46043 April 18, 1939 - TERESA LANDRITO, ET AL. v. RICARDO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 46134 April 18, 1939 - NICOLASA DE GUZMAN v. ANGELA LIMCOLIOC

    067 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 46317 April 18, 1939 - JUSTO QUIMING v. MARIANO L. DE LA ROSA

    067 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 45290 April 19, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. PAULA MERCADO

    067 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 45126 April 19, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ALBINO PANUNCIO

    067 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 45166 April 19, 1939 - LEON C. VIARDO v. GALICANO GUTIERREZ

    067 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 45190 April 19, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO APAREJADO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 45531 April 19, 1939 - FRED OMNAS, ET AL. v. PABLO S. RIVERA

    067 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 46002 April 19, 1939 - SALVACION RIOSA v. STILIANOPULOS, INC.

    067 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. 45715 April 20, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMIGIO OLIVERIA

    067 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 45934 April 20, 1939 - FORTUNATO DIAZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    067 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 45980 April 20, 1939 - MARIA MARTINEZ v. YEK TONG LIN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO.

    067 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 45493 April 21, 1939 - GERARDO GARCIA v. ANGEL SUAREZ

    067 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 45595 April 21, 1939 - JUAN POSADAS, ET AL. v. GO HAP, ET AL.

    067 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 46046 April 21, 1939 - PROCOPIO GAQUIT v. DOROTEO CONUI

    067 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 46570 April 21, 1939 - JOSE D. VILLENA v. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

    067 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 45449 April 22, 1939 - TOMAS S. OCEJO v. CONSUL GENERAL OF SPAIN

    067 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46330 April 22, 1939 - IRENEO ABAD SANTOS, ET AL. v. PROVINCE OF TARLAC, ET AL.

    067 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 45413 April 24, 1939 - LA YEBANA, CO., INC. v. JULIO L. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 45666 April 24, 1939 - ALFREDO VALENZUELA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    067 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 45978 April 24, 1939 - MIGUELA ELEAZAR v. EUSEBIO ELEAZAR

    067 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. 46029 April 24, 1939 - NATIONAL LOAN AND INVESTMENT BOARD v. LUIS MENESES

    067 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 45369 April 25, 1939 - ISABELA SUGAR CO., INC. v. ALFFREDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 45544 April 25, 1939 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LORENZO ECHARRI

    067 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. 45624 April 25, 1939 - GEORGE LITTON v. HILL & CERON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. 45739 April 26, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO PEJI BAUTISTA

    067 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. 45755 April 25, 1939 - ASUNCION ABAD v. AMANDO AQUINO

    067 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 45964 April 26, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTITURO FALLER

    067 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 46035 April 25, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, ET AL.

    067 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 46260 April 26, 1939 - PABLO TAMAYO v. FRANCISCO E. JOSE, ET AL.

    067 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. 46356 April 25, 1939 - FRUCTUOSA VELASCO VDA. DE TALAVERA v. CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN

    067 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 45403 April 26, 1939 - NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK v. NEW YORK TONG LIN & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY

    067 Phil 544

  • G.R. No. 45519 April 26, 1939 - RUFINA SALAO, ET AL. v. TEOFILO C. SANTOS, ET AL.

    067 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 45521 April 26, 1939 - JOSE MORENO, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO SAN MATEO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 45598 April 26, 1939 - TAN PHO v. HASSAMAL DALAMAL

    067 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 45614 April 26, 1939 - NORBERTO FORDAN v. ANTONIO LUZON

    067 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 45662 April 26, 1939 - ENRIQUE CLEMENTE v. DIONISIO GALVAN

    067 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. 46366 April 26, 1939 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PARDO Y ROBLES HERMANOS, ET AI. .

    067 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 46492 April 26, 1939 - RAMON SOTELO v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    067 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 45173 April 27, 1939 - RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. BACHRACH MOTOR COMPANY, INC.

    067 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 45359 April 27, 1939 - JACINTO M. DEL SAZ OROZCO, ET AL. v. SALVADOR ARANETA

    067 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 45506 April 27, 1939 - FORTUNATO MANZANERO v. REMEDIOS BONGON

    067 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 45508 April 27, 1939 - SEGUNDA DEVEZA v. ERIBERTO BALMEO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 45534 April 27, 1939 - JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO, ET AL. v. ALFREDO HIDALGO REAL

    067 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45694 April 27, 1939 - FRANCISCO YATCO v. EL HOGAR FILIPINO

    067 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 45724 April 27, 1939 - IGNACIO DE GUZMAN, ET AL. v. TEODORO IBEA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. 45741 April 27, 1939 - F. Y A. GARCIA DIEGO v. GLORIA DE ANTONIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 45185 April 28, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. SALUD ALDEGUER VIUDA DE ROMERO SALAS

    067 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 45464 April 28, 1939 - JOSUE SONCUYA v. CARMEN DE LUNA

    067 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 45625 April 28, 1939 - MARGARITA VILLANUEVA v. JUAN SANTOS

    067 Phil 648

  • G.R. No. 45761 April 28, 1939 - JULIA DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 45266 April 29, 1939 - SIMEON RAEL v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF RIZAL

    067 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 45410 April 29, 1939 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. JOSE BERNABE

    067 Phil 658

  • G.R. No. 45412 April 29, 1939 - COSME CARLOS, ET AL. v. COSME CARLOS

    067 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 45425 April 29, 1939 - JOSE GATCHALIAN v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    067 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. 45479 April 29, 1939 - FELIX ATACADOR v. HILARION SILAYAN

    067 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. 45597 April 29, 1939 - MACARIA PASCUAL v. LORENZA RAMIREZ, ET AL.

    067 Phil 678

  • G.R. No. 45965 April 29, 1939 - AMPARO GONZALEZ, ET AL. v. PRIMITIVO TRINIDAD, ET AL.

    067 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. 46003 April 29, 1939 - SIXTO DE LA COSTA, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO CLEOFAS

    067 Phil 686

  • G.R. No. 46026 April 29, 1939 - JESUSA PORTILLO-RIVERA v. STRACHAN, MACMURRAY & CO., LTD.

    067 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. 46604 April 29, 1939 - FRANCISCO MORFE, ET AL. v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF CALOOCAN, ET AL.

    067 Phil 696

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45614   April 26, 1939 - NORBERTO FORDAN v. ANTONIO LUZON<br /><br />067 Phil 559

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 45614. April 26, 1939.]

    NORBERTO FORDAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO LUZON, Defendant-Appellant.

    E. F. Solevin for Appellant.

    Rodolfo Dato for Appellee.

    SYLLABUS


    1. EXECUTION; EXEMPT PROPERTY. — According to the doctrine laid down in the case of Cabuhat v. Ansay and Reodica (42 Phil., 170, 175), the property of the defendant in the former case and the plaintiff in the present case, N. F., being exempt from execution up to the sum of P300, the plaintiff in the first case and the defendant herein, A. L., who outbade the others for said homestead at the execution sale with the sum of P 493.73, should have reimbursed the therein defendant and the herein plaintiff, N. F., the aforesaid sum of P300, and not having done so, said N. F. has a right and cause of action to bring this suit as he did.

    2. ID.; ID.; "RES ADJUDICATA." — Although in Civil Case No. 5042 and in the present case No. 6321, the parties are the same, the subject matter or things in litigation are different, for while the former case was for the collection of a debt, the present case is for the reimbursement of a certain sum of money exempt from execution; and the causes of action are likewise different, being in the first case the refusal of the therein defendant and herein plaintiff to pay his debt and in the present case being the refusal of the herein defendant and the therein plaintiff to reimburse a certain sum of money exempt from execution. The requisites established in the case of Aquino v. Director of Lands (39 Phil., 850), for there to be res adjudicata, namely, (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of things; and (c) identity of questions involved, not being present, res adjudicata does not exist.


    D E C I S I O N


    VILLA-REAL, J.:


    The present appeal has been taken by the defendant from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, the dispositive part of which is as follows: "By virtue of the stipulation of facts above quoted, the court hereby renders judgment sentencing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P369.17 plus the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In support of his appeal the appellant assigns the following errors alleged to have been committed by the court a quo in its aforesaid decision, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. The trial court erred in not holding that the facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a cause of action.

    "2. The court a quo erred in not holding that the cause of action of the plaintiff against the defendant is res adjudicata.

    "3. The court a quo also erred in sentencing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P369.17 and costs, instead of ordering the plaintiff to pay to the defendant the amount of P69.17.

    "4. Lastly, the lower court erred in not granting the motion for reconsideration and new trial."cralaw virtua1aw library

    When the case was called for trial, the parties submitted to the court for its decision the following stipulation of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. That the plaintiff and the defendant are both residents of the municipality of Nabua, Province of Camarines Sur, and both having the legal capacity to be parties to this action.

    "2. That the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of a parcel of land in which he and his family resided and more particularly described as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "A coconut land with a house and improvements thereon situated in the barrio of Tupas, municipality of Nabua, Province of Camarines Sur, Philippine Islands, with an area of 86 ares and 57 centares, bounded on the North, by Leoncio Penaflor; on the East, by Agapita Fordan; on the South, by Alejandro Villaflor; and on the West, by Leoncio Penaflor, assessed in the name of the plaintiff at P510 under tax No. 37379 superseding tax No. 31381 — part ’C’ in the name of Simon Fordan, father of the plaintiff.

    "3. That in connection with the execution issued in civil case No. 5042 before this Hon. Court for the recovery of a sum of money, in which the herein plaintiff was the defendant and the herein defendant was the plaintiff, the above described property was levied upon by the sheriff and sold at public auction, the defendant herein being the highest bidder and the corresponding document of absolute sale was executed in his favor on February 3, 1933, for the amount of P493.73.

    "4. That because of the refusal of this Court to order the sheriff to place the herein defendant in possession of the land above described, the said defendant brought civil case No. 5907 before this court against the herein plaintiff for the recovery of the said property.

    "5. That the defense and prayer put up by the herein plaintiff in the said civil case No. 5907, as then defendant, read in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "‘As special defense, defendant alleges:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "‘That the levy and sale by the Sheriff of the land subject of this complaint in the execution of the judgment in civil case No. 5042 of this court was illegal, same being contrary to the mandatory provisions of section 452 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

    "‘Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this case be dismissed with costs against the plaintiff. It is also prayed that the legality of the sale of the land described in the complaint be determined in this case.’

    "6. That after the trial of the said civil case No. 5907, the following decision was therein rendered:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "‘In his testimony at the trial defendant admitted that plaintiff has definitely acquired at public auction the land described in the complaint which was attached and sold as the property of the said defendant. He only alleged as a defense that the land is exempted from execution for the reason that its assessed value is only P147.91 and presented the corresponding tax receipt Exhibit 1.

    "‘Upon examination of the Exhibit, it is seen on the back thereof that the land is valued at P150 and the improvements at P360, or a total of P510. Defendant wants to exclude the improvements which according to law, is not proper and, in conformity with Exhibit A, the property was adjudicated to plaintiff with its improvements.

    "‘It has been established that plaintiff has never been able to take possession of the land after the execution of Exhibit A on account of the opposition of defendant, who has retained its possession up to the present. It has likewise been established that 2,800 coconuts are gathered from the land and that two thirds thereof correspond to the owner and have an average price of fifty centavos per 100. Exhibit A was executed on February 3, 1933.

    "‘The defense alleged by defendant is overruled and the land in question with all its improvements is declared the property of the plaintiff. The possession thereof is hereby ordered delivered to the latter by defendant who is further sentenced to pay plaintiff P6.27, value of his participation in the products of the land for each year from February, 1933 up to the delivery of the land to the plaintiff, with costs. It is so ordered.

    "‘Given at Naga, Camarines Sur, this day October 23, 1935."cralaw virtua1aw library

    (Sgd.) M. ROSAURO

    Judge

    "7. What the appeal interposed by the plaintiff against the decision above quoted was declared abandoned and dismissing by the Supreme Court on February 28, 1936.

    "8. That by virtue of the foregoing, the judgment was executed with the costs amounting to P69.17 unpaid, and the property and possession of the land above described definitely passed into the hands of the herein defendant, who refused and still refuses to reimburse to the herein plaintiff the amount P300 which, according to law, is the value of the property exempt from execution and the reimbursement of which is sought in this action.

    "Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that only the facts herein set forth and agreed upon by the parties be taken into consideration in the decision to be rendered in this case."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The first question to be decided in the present appeal is that raised by the third assignment of alleged error, namely, whether or not the court a quo erred in not holding that the facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute a cause of action.

    It is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff Norberto Fordan was the exclusive owner of the land in question as his homestead in which he and his family resided; that in civil case No. 5042 of the same Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur. for the recovery of a sum of money, wherein the herein plaintiff Norberto Fordan was the defendant and the herein defendant Antonino Luzon was the plaintiff, a judgment was rendered in favor of the latter; that a writ of execution was therein issued, the same having been served by the provincial sheriff of Camarines Sur; that the aforesaid homestead was sold at public auction, the herein defendant as judgment creditor being the highest bidder; that the corresponding deed of sale for the sum of P493.73 was issued on February 3, 1933; that by virtue of said sale, the ownership and possession of the said homestead passed to the defendant; that the latter has refused and still refuses to reimburse the plaintiff the sum P300 which, according to law, is the value of the property exempt from execution; and that said homestead is the sole dwelling place and the only means of support of the plaintiff and his family, inasmuch as he does not own any other property.

    In the case of Cabuhat v. Ansay and Reodica (42 Phil., 170, 175,) this court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The conclusion to which we are thus led is that, supposing the individual interest of Esteban Cabuhat in the property in question to be of a value in excess of P150, said interest is liable to be taken in execution, so far as it is in excess of said value. (13 R. C. L., 617; 21 Cyc., 491 Vanstory v. Thornton, 34 Am. St. Rep., 483, 505; White v. Spencer, 129 Am. St. Rep., 547, 560; Lean v. Givens, 106 Am. St. Rep., 79.) This means in the concrete case that, if the property in question brought at the execution sale more than P150, the purchaser at that sale acquired the interest of Esteban Cabuhat therein, subject to the obligation to pay to said Cabuhat the sum of P150, this being the amount exempt to him by law. . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    According to the doctrine above-cited, the property of the defendant in the former case and the plaintiff in the present case, Norberto Fordan, being exempt from execution up to the sum of P300 in accordance with section 452, case 1, of Act No. 190, as amended by Act No. 3862, the plaintiff in the first case and the defendant herein, Antonio Luzon, who outbade the others for said homestead at the execution sale with the sum of P493.73, should have reimbursed the therein defendant and herein plaintiff, Norberto Fordan, the sum of P300, and not having done so, said Norberto Fordan h as a right and cause of action to bring this suit as he did; and, consequently, the court a quo did not commit the first error allegedly committed in its appealed decision.

    As to the second assignment of alleged error, that is, whether the plaintiff’s cause of action constitutes res adjudicata, it should be said that although in civil case No. 5042 above-mentioned and in the present case No. 6321 the parties are the same, the subject matter or things in litigation are different, for while the former case was for the collection of a debt, the present case is for the reimbursement of a certain sum of money exempt from execution; and the causes of action are likewise different, being in the first case the refusal of the therein defendant and the herein plaintiff to pay his debt and in the present case being the refusal of the herein defendant and the therein plaintiff to reimburse a certain sum of money exempt from execution.

    The requisites established in the case of Aquino v. Director of Lands (39 Phil., 850), for there to be res adjudicata, namely, (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of things; and (c) identity of questions involved, not being present, res adjudicata does not exist.

    Hence, the second assignment of alleged error is also without merit.

    As to the third assignment that the court a quo erred in sentencing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P369.17 and the costs, instead of ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant the sum of P69.17, if, as we have above-stated, relying upon the law and jurisprudence, the herein plaintiff Norberto Fordan has a right to have exempt from execution the sum of P300, the amount for which his homestead is exempt from execution, the lower court did not commit the third error it is alleged to have committed.

    Wherefore, finding no error in the judgment appealed from, the same is affirmed in all its parts, without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, Concepcion and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45614   April 26, 1939 - NORBERTO FORDAN v. ANTONIO LUZON<br /><br />067 Phil 559


    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