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. 45295   April 10, 1939 - RUFO ARCENAS v. INOCENCIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. <br /><br />067 Phil 238

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 45295. April 10, 1939.]

    RUFO ARCENAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INOCENCIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL., Defendants. INOCENCIO DEL ROSARIO, cross-plaintiff-appellant, ESPERANZA CORDOVA and MATIAS SEVERINO, cross-defendants-appellees.

    Jose Altavas for plaintiff and Appellant.

    Antonio Villasis for defendant and Appellant.

    Santiago Abella Vito for defendants and appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. SALE; DOUBLE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY; RIGHTS OF PURCHASER WHO REGISTERS HIS TITLE; ERRONEOUS ORDERS. — The two appealed orders of dismissal are clearly erroneous. With respect to the demurrer interposed to the complaint, it is true that when real property is the subject matter of a double sale, the purchaser who first registers it in the registry becomes the owner thereon under the provision of article 1473 of the Civil Code; but this legal provision should not be understood in an absolute sense, nor does it constitute a ground to sustain the demurrer, because the rights conferred by said article upon one of the two purchasers of the same real property who has registered his title in the registry of deeds, do not come into being if the registration is not made in good faith. And it is not only required that the purchaser of the real property who had it registered should have done so in good faith, but also for a valuable consideration.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PURCHASERS NOT IN GOOD FAITH. — In the instant Case, the defendants E. C. and M. S., under the allegations on the complaint which should be deemed admitted, when they interposed a demurrer, were not purchasers in good faith, inasmuch as they knew that the lot in question had been sold by the defendant I. del R. to the plaintiff with the right of repurchase and the said spouses undertook to repurchase the land by paying the plaintiff the price of P700 and the defendant I. del R. the balance of P1,300 to complete the stipulated price of P2,000; however, according to the allegations of the gold complaint, said spouses did not pay to the plaintiff the amount of P700. or that of P1,300 to the defendant I. del R., and in bad faith registered their deed in the registry of deeds.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND THE SALE. — Another error committed by the court is the dismissal of the complaint without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend it, in violation of section 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure providing that when the court sustains a demurrer, the party whose pleading is thus adjudged defective may amend it within a time to be fixed by the court. The statement made in the order of dismissal to the effect that the complaint is not susceptible of amendment is clearly irregular.

    4. ID.; ID.; ID.; DISMISSAL OF CROSS COMPLAINT. — The order dismissing the cross-complaint of I. del R. against his codefendants E. C. and M. S., is likewise erroneous because instead of ruling upon the demurrer interposed to said cross-complaint, the court dismissed the same on the sole ground that the principal complaint had been dismissed. Even assuming that the complaint in the present case cannot be maintained, the cross-complaint of I. del R. may stand, the best evidence of this being the fact that in the same order of dismissal, the court reserved to the cross-plaintiff I. del R. the right to bring the Action which he may deem proper against the cross-defendants E. C and M. S., for the recovery of the balance of the indebtedness (that is, the stipulated price of the sale of the land), or for the rescission of the contract of sale — a reservation which could not have been made if the dismissal of the principle complaint were a bar to the continuation, substantiation and decision of the cross-complaint.


    D E C I S I O N


    CONCEPCION, J.:


    This appeal has been taken: (1) from an order of June 17, 1936, sustaining a demurrer and dismissing the complaint with the statement that the latter is not susceptible of amendment, and (2) from another order of the Same date dismissing the cross-complaint of the defendant Inocencio del Rosario against his codefendants Esperanza Cordova and Matias Severino because of the dismissal of the principal complaint.

    THE COMPLAINT AND THE DEMURRER THERETO

    The complaint was filed by Rufo Arcenas against Inocencio del Rosario, Esperanza Cordova, Matias Severino and the registrar of deeds Salvador Villaruz. According to its allegations, the defendant Inocencio del Rosario sold to the plaintiff, with the right of repurchase, on January 1, 1923, lot No, 3971 of the Capiz cadastre, conferred by original certificate of the title No. 5130. By virtue of said sale, the plaintiff took possessions of the land on the date of the deed of sale. Inocencio del Rosario did not exercise his right of repurchase with the stipulated five-year period which expired on January 1, 1928, or at any time thereafter. The plaintiff, thereupon, asked the registrar of deeds to issue to him the transfer certificate of title to said lot, for which purpose he presented the aforesaid deed of sale and on affidavit to the effect that the defendant Inocencio del Rosario had not availed himself to his right of repurchase. The registrar of deeds refused to issue the transfer certificate of title.

    Paragraph 6 of the complaint reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That subsequently, that is, on May 31, 1934, the defendant Inocencio del Rosario with full knowledge that he is no longer the owner or possessor of the land in question, lot No. 3971 of the Capiz cadastre, in bad faith and with the intention of defrauding the plaintiff Rufo Arcenas, notwithstanding the express warnings of the plaintiff and the assurances given by said defendant Inocencio del Rosario to the plaintiff not to sell, convey, transfer or otherwise alienate and encumber the said parcel of land, lot No. 3971, nevertheless and defendant Inocencio del Rosario, made an absolute sale, conveyance and transfer thereof to the other defendant Esperanza Cordova assisted by her husband Matias Severino, and said spouses, with full knowledge that said land, had already been sold long before, with the right of repurchase, by the said defendant Inocencio del Rosario to the plaintiff Rufo Arcenas and that ownership thereof had consolidated in the latter, and acting in bad faith and with the intention of defrauding the plaintiff Rufo Arcenas, against the warnings of the said plaintiff and in breach of the promises of both defendants Inocencio del Rosario, on the one hand, and Esperanza Cordova and Matias Severino, on the other, to repurchase the land for P700, paying this amount to the plaintiff Rufo Arcenas, should he consent to said repurchase, before entering into any transaction over the said land, the said spouses purchased the land in question and received the deed of sale, conveyance and transfer executed in their favor by the defendant Inocencio del Rosario, and they deliberately and maliciously hastened the registration thereof in the office of the registrar of deeds of the Province of Capiz, Salvador Villaruz, the herein defendant, who, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s protest and the notice of lis pendens made by him, registered the same and issued a transfer certificate of title No. 2186 corresponding to lot No. 3971 which is the subject matter of this complaint, in favor and in the name of the defendant Esperanza Cordova married to Matias Severino."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The complaint concludes with the plaintiff’s prayer that he be declared the owner of the aforesaid lot No. 3971 of the Capiz cadastre, and that the deed of sale executed by the defendant Inocencio del Rosario in favor of the spouses Esperanza Cordova and Matias Severino be declared null and void, with other pronouncements in favor of the plaintiff.

    The defendants Esperanza Cordova and Matias Severino interposed a demurrer to the complaint on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute a cause of action because, so they argue, the deed of sale with the right of repurchase executed by Inocencio del Rosario in favor of said defendant Esperanza Cordova was duly registered, a certificate of title having been issued in her name, whereas, the deed of sale in favor of the plaintiff Rufo. Arcenas has never been registered in the registry of deeds.

    The court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the complaint.

    THE CROSS-COMPLAINT AND THE DEMURRER THERETO

    The defendant Inocencio del Rosario filed his answer and a separate cross-complaint against the spouses Esperanza Cordova and Matias Severino, alleging substantially that he notified said defendants that the land referred to in the complaint, which the said spouses attempted to but, was already sold to the plaintiff for P700, with the right of repurchase within the years, and that said right was not exercised by the cross-plaintiff and the possession of the land was already delivered to the plaintiff. It is also alleged that the cross-defendants undertook to repurchase the questioned land from the plaintiff for P700, to be deducted from the price of P2,000 agreed upon the cross-plaintiff, provided that the latter should execute without delay the deed of the sale of the land, as was in fact done on May 31, 1934. The cross-defendants — continues the cross-complaint — in malicious breach of their obligations, did not repurchase the litigated land from the plaintiff, and they did not pay to the latter the sum, of P700, nor to the cross-plaintiff the sale price of the land, and in the bad faith and with the intention of defrauding the cross-plaintiff and the plaintiff, they caused the registration of the deed of sale executed in their favor in the office of the register of deeds of Capiz, and obtained the cancellation of the original certificate of title of the cross-plaintiff Inocencio del Rosario. In his prayer the cross-plaintiff asked for the rescission of the sale of the land made by and between the cross-plaintiff and the cross-defendants, and the cancellation of the transfer certificate of title issued in favor of said cross-defendants.

    The latter interposed a demurrer to the cross-complaint on the ground that the facts alleged therein do not constitute a cause of action for the rescission of the said contract of purchase and sale, one of their arguments being that, inasmuch as there is no stipulation in the contract as to when the defendants should pay the stipulated price of P2,000, said price should be paid upon the delivery of the thing sold, and as under paragraph (b) of the complaint, the land sold has not yet been delivered to the purchasers, the cross-defendants, the latter are not guilty of any delay, wherefore, the cross-plaintiff has no right to rescind the aforesaid contract of purchase and sale.

    Instead of ruling upon the aforesaid demurrer, the court dismissed the cross-complaint due to the dismissal of the principal complaint.

    The two appealed orders of dismissal are clearly erroneous With respect to the demurrer interposed to the complaint, it is true that when real property is the subject matter of a double sale, the purchaser who first registers it in the registry becomes the owner thereof under the provision of article 1473 of the Civil Code; but this legal provision should not be understood in an absolute sense, nor does it constitute a ground to sustain the demurrer, because the rights conferred by said article upon one of the two purchasers of the same real property who has registered his title in the registry of deeds, do not come into being if the registration is not made in good faith. (Leung Yee v. F. L. Strong Machinery Co. and Williamson, 37 Phil., 644.) And it is not only required that the purchaser of the real property who has it registered should have done so in good faith, but also for a valuable consideration. (Tuason v. Raymundo, 28 Phil., 635, 637.)

    In the instant case, the defendants Esperanza Cordova and Matias Severino, under the allegations of the complaint which should be deemed admitted, when they interposed a demurrer, were not purchasers in good faith, inasmuch as they knew that the lot in question had been sold by the defendant Inocencio del Rosario to the plaintiff with the right of repurchase and the said spouses undertook to repurchase the land by paying the plaintiff the price of P700 and the defendant Inocencio del Rosario the balance of P1,300 to complete the stipulated price of P2,000; however, according to the allegations of the said complains, said spouses did not pay to the plaintiff the amount of P700, or that of P1,300 to the defendant Inocencio del Rosario, and in bad faith registered their deed in the registry of deeds.

    One of the errors committed by the court is the dismissal of the complaint without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to amend it, in violation of section 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure providing that when the court sustains a demurrer, the party whose pleading is thus adjudged defective may amend it within a time to be fixed by the court.

    The statement made in the order of dismissal to the effect that the complaint is not susceptible of amendment is clearly irregular.

    The order dismissing the cross-complaint of Inocencio del Rosario against his codefendants Esperanza Cordova and Matias Severino, is likewise erroneous because instead of ruling upon the demurrer, interposed to said cross-complaint, the court dismissed the same on the sole ground that the principal complaint had been dismissed. Even assuming that the complaint in the present case cannot be maintained, the cross-complaint of Inocencio del Rosario may stand, the best evidence of this being the fact that in the same order of dismissal, the court reserved to the cross-plaintiff Inocencio del Rosario the right to bring the action which he may deem proper against the cross-defendants Esperanza Cordova and Matias Severino for the recovery of the balance of the indebtedness (that is, the stipulated price of the sale of the land), or for the rescission of the contract of sale — a reservation which could not have been made if the dismissal of the principal complaint were a bar to the continuation, substantiation and decision of the cross-complaint.

    The appealed orders are reversed, the demurrers interposed to the complaint and cross-complaint are overruled, and it is ordered that the case be returned to the court of origin for further proceedings, with the costs of this instance to the appellees. So ordered.

    Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 45295   April 10, 1939 - RUFO ARCENAS v. INOCENCIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. <br /><br />067 Phil 238


    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