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. 45418   April 18, 1939 - AMBROSIO RAMOS, ET AL. v. H. A. GIBBON, ET AL. <br /><br />067 Phil 371

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 45418. April 18, 1939.]

    AMBROSIO RAMOS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. H. A. GIBBON, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

    Jose C. Macatangay for Appellants.

    Ramon P. Mitra for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. MINING CLAIMS; POSSESSORY RIGHTS OF A QUALIFIED LOCATOR; TRANSFER BY CONVEYANCE, INHERITANCE OR DEVICE. — The claims here having been validly located in 1934, before the approval of our Constitution, and it appearing in the contract Exhibit A that the plaintiffs are the "locators, possessors and owners" of said claims, it is sufficient to direct attention to the rule that even without patent, the possessory right of a qualified locator of the discovery of minerals upon the claim is a property right, unaffected by the fact that the paramount title to the land is in the government. As a property right, it is susceptible of transfer by conveyance, inheritance or device.

    2. ID.; ID.; ID.; REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS IN THE OFFICE OF THE MINING RECORDER. — It is not denied that the mining claims in question were registered in the appellees’ names in the office of the mining recorder of the subprovince of Benguet. While there exists conflict in the evidence for both parties as to the correct location of said mining claims, this conflict is of no material consequence. The claims were registered in the office of the mining recorder of the subprovince of Benguet, and whether registration was made in a wrong province, that registration was made in the honest belief that the claims were within the jurisdiction of the subprovince of Benguet and the mistake should not affect the rights of the appellees who concededly were the ones who-had validly located them. This is especially true in the present case where there is no conflict of rights between adverse claimants either relating to location, territory or registration.

    3. ID.; ID.; ID.; NOVATION OF CONTRACTS. — Novation is never presumed, and in order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitutes it, it shall be necessary that it is so declared expressly, or that the old and the new obligations be incompatible in every respect (art. 1204, Civil Code). There is absolutely no provision in Exhibit 1 which expressly or even impliedly repeals that of Exhibit A, and much less do we find any incompatibility between the two documents, in the absence of which novation does not take place. Exhibit 1 is a mere supplementary agreement in virtue of which the parties herein confirm and ratify the contents of Exhibit A.

    4. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. — The mere fact that Exhibit 1 contains an additional stipulation to the effect that of the purchase price of the claims, the appellants have the right to retain the sum of P2,600 until the completion of the survey of those claims by the appellants, does not in any manner constitute novation of contract as this stipulation serves only to supplement and amplify that of Exhibit A there being no change or alteration of the object and condition of that contract.

    5. ID.; ID.; ID.; CONCURRENCE OF TWO OR MORE CREDITORS OR DEBTORS IN THE SALE OBLIGATION. — The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors with respect to the same obligation does not imply that each of the former is entitled to demand the performance of the obligation in its entirety or that each of the latter is bound to perform it. This shall be the case only when expressly so provided by the terms of the obligation, and the parties are bond in solido. (Art. 1137, Civil Code.) The presumption, in the absence of the stipulation as to how certain debtors are bound, is that they are bound jointly.

    6. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID. : JOINT AND SEVERAL OBLIGATIONS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CREDITS OR DEBTS. — Unless otherwise provided by the terms of the of rations to which article 1137 relates, the credit or the debt shall be deemed to have been divided into as many equal parts as there are debtors or creditors, and shall be regarded as separate and distinct credits or debts (art. 1138, Civil Code). The assignment of error on this point is well taken, and the lower court committed an error in sentencing the appellants to pay the appellees the sum of P52,600 jointly and severally. Appellant’s liability under the contract of sale Exhibit A is joint (manconunada) and not several (solidaria).


    D E C I S I O N


    LAUREL, J.:


    In this case plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendants (1) the sum of P52,600, which is the balance of the purchase price of a group of 80 mineral lode claim known as Cabayo Group which they sold to the latter as evidenced by a document attached to the complaint and marked at Exhibit A; (2) the sum of P10,000 for damaged by reason of the failure of the defendants to pay the balance above mentioned; and (3) the costs of the proceedings. In their answer defendants set up the following defenses: (1) That plaintiffs-appellees were not the real owners and actual possessors and occupants of the mining claims forming the Cabayo Group at the time of the execution of the deed of Sale Exhibit A and therefore had no right to make a valid conveyance thereof; (2) that Ambrosio Ramos, had no authority to execute the deed of sale Exhibit A, and such sale is void because no proper valuation of the mining claims alienated was made by the Bureau of Science; (3) that plaintiffs original complaint having been filed on November 4, 1935, the action with reference to the last installment of P30,000 which fell due on March 22, 1936, was premature; (5) that plaintiffs having failed to make the proper survey of the mining claims they are estopped from demanding the fulfillment of the appellants part of the agreement: (6) that the said mining claims not having been registered in the Province of Nueva Vizcaya where they are located, the Sale should be considered rescinded: and (7) that the obligation contracted by the defendants was automatically extinguished upon the execution of Exhibit 1. As counterclaim, defendants prayed (1) for the return to them of the sum of I7,400 which they had advanced to plaintiffs in virtue of contract of sale, Exhibit A; (2) for the costs of the survey and other expenses amounting to P15,000; and (3) for their attorney’s fees in the sum of P7,000.

    After trial the Court of First Instance of the Mountain Province found for the plaintiffs and adjudged the defendants H. A. Gibbon, J. C. Cowper, Hardley McVay, George Caldwell and L. F. Rothenhoefer liable and holden jointly and severally to the plaintiffs in the sum of P52,600 and legal interests thereon and costs.

    Defendants have appealed to this court by bill of exceptions and assign no less than eleven errors alleged to have been committed by the lower court.

    From the evidence presented, the following been duly established: That some time in 1934 Plaintiff’s validly located the eighty mineral code claims known as the Cabayo Group in the subprovince of Benguet December 1934, by virtue of an option agreement. Exhibit C, entered into by and between Ambrosio Ramos in representation of his co-plaintiffs on the one hand and J. C. Cowper and H. A. . Gibbon on the other, the latter were given ninety days within which to make examination and investigation of the lode mineral claims constituting the Cabayo Group to determine their mineral possibilities and commercial value with the aim in view of forming later a mining corporation in which the herein appellees would receive certain participation. It was further stipulated in said option agreement that if after said investigation, the appellants H. A. Gibbon d chose not to exercise their right of option, they were to return the property and all corresponding papers to plaintiffs. By of this option agreements the defendants H. A. Gibbon and J. C. Cowper proceeded to examine the properties, and finding them satisfactory, instead of taking in the plaintiffs in the venture as stipulated in the option agreement, Exhibit C, they, together with the other appellants, L. F. Rothenhoefer, George Caldwell and Harley McVay, decided to buy the claims outright from the plaintiffs for P60,000 payable, according to Exhibit A, within the period of one year from the execution of said document as follows: P10,000 on or before June 1, 1935; P20 000 before September 15, 1935 and the balance of P30,000 on or before March 22, 1936. It was the attorney-in-fact of the claimowner. Of the first installment of P10,000, payable on or before June 1, 1935, the appellants paid P2,000 on April 2, 1935, and P5,400 on June 6, 1935, or a total of P7,400, thus leaving a balance of P2,600 on that installment. Since then, no further payment was made by the defendants, leaving a balance of P52,600 payable and due the plaintiffs.

    The appellants complain in this instance against the admission by the court below of the second amended complaint filed on April 29, 1936. The original complaint in this case was filed on November 4, 1935. In that complaint it was prayed, inter alia that the appellants be made to comply with the terms of the sale agreement, Exhibit A. In view of the fact that at the time of the filing of the original complaint the last installment of P30,000 stipulated in Exhibit A was not yet due, it was also prayed that the appellants be ordered to pay the appellees that last installment on or before March 22, 1936, the date when, according to Exhibit A, payment therefor would be due. Due to discussion on incidental matters regarding amendment of the pleadings, the case remained pending in the court’s calendar until after March 22, 1936. It was with a view to making the complaint conform to actual facts that the second amended complaint dated April 29, 1936, was filed by the appellees wherein they included the sum of P30,000 as already due and demandable. It would seem superfluous for us to state that amendments to pleadings are allowable and that procedural laws so amply provide in the interest of justice and as a matter of public policy. Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the courts to allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding at any stage of the action, in furtherance of justice and upon such terms, if any, as may be proper (Alonso v. Villamor, 16 Phil., 315). Upon the other hand, the granting of leave to file amended pleadings is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. This discretion will not be disturbed on appeal, except in case of an evident abuse thereof. (Torres Vda. de Nery v. Tomacruz, 49 Phil., 913.I In the present case, the trial judge exercised his discretion wisely to avoid unnecessary multiplicity of suits.

    Appellants next argue that there is a defect of party defendant in this case; that is, that the present action should have been instituted against the Monte Cristo Gold Mining Association and all its members and not against the appellants in their individual capacity. Appellants contend that at the time of the execution of the contract of sale Exhibit A, they were acting merely as trustees and representatives of the Monte Cristo Mining Association. Appellants argue that the words "trustees, cestui que trust, successors and assigned appearing in Exhibit A should be held to mean the Monte Cristo Mining Association. This is, to say the least, misleading. The deed of sale Exhibit A executed by the appellants and the appellee Ambrosio Ramos, the latter in representation of the claimowners, does not mention any association or entity and much less the Monte Cristo Gold Mining Association. If as the appellants contend, they were merely acting as trustees or representatives of the said association, there could not have been any difficulty in stating that fact in Exhibit A as was done in the case of the appellee Ambrosio Ramos who signed that document as attorney-in-fact of the claim owners. Appellants, however, claim that the failure to mention the name of the Monte Cristo Gold Mining Association in Exhibit A was the result of an oversight when said document was prepared by the appellant J. C. Cowper. This is a trivial excuse.

    It is next contended by appellants that plaintiffs-appellees had no right to sell the 80 lode mineral claims constituting the Cabayo Group because the same has not been painted and properly registered. The claims here having been validly located in 1934, before the approval of our Constitution, and it appearing in the contract Exhibit A that the plaintiffs are the "locators, possessors and owners ’ of said claims, it is sufficient to direct attention to the rule that even without patent, the possessory right of a qualified locator of the discovery of mineral, upon the claim is a property right, unaffected by the fact that the paramount title to the land is in the government (Gold Creek Mining Corporation v. Rodriguez and Abadilla, 37 Off. Gaz., 1662; Salacot Mining Co. v. Rodriguez, G. R. No. 45860, March 20, 1939; Salacot Mining Co. v. Abadilla, G. R. No. 45861, March 20, 1939; McDaniel v. Apacible and Cuisia, 42 Phil., 753). As a property right, it is susceptible of transfer by conveyance, inheritance or device.

    Appellants, however, contend that inasmuch as said mining claims have not been registered in the province where they are situated, the appellees had absolutely no right to sell or dispose of them. It is not denied that the mining claims in question were registered in the appellees’ names in the office of the mining recorder of the subprovince of Benguet. While there exists conflict In the evidence for both parties as to the correct location of said mining claims, we are of the opinion that this conflict is of no material consequence. The claims were registered in the office of the mining recorder of the subprovince of Benguet, and whether registration was made in a wrong province, that registration was made in the honest belief that the claims were within the jurisdiction of the subprovince of Benguet and the mistake should not affect the rights of the appellees who concededly were the ones who had validly located them. This is especially true in the present case where there is no conflict of rights between adverse claimants either relating to location, territory or registration.

    With reference to the contention that appellant Ambrosio Ramos was without authority to sign Exhibit A on March 22, 1935; before the power of attorney in his favor (Exhibit E) was ratified before a notary public, the following acts and omissions of the appellants, preclude them from questioning the legality of the acts of Ambrosio Ramos: (1) The failure of the appellants to deny the genuineness and due execution of the deed of sale Exhibit A attached to the complaint; (2) the fact that it was the appellants themselves who prepared or caused to be prepared Exhibit A and the power of attorney (Exhibit E); (3) the subsequent registration of these two documents in the office of the mining recorder at the instance of appellant H. A. Gibbon himself; (4) the appellants’ taking possession o and working on the mining claims in question after the said registration; (6) the payments made by the appellants to the appellee Ambrosio Ramos in behalf of The claimowners of part of the first installment as stipulated in the deed of sale Exhibit A, which payments were effected in the following manner: P2,000 on April 2, 1935, and P6,400 on June 6, 1935; and finally (6) the execution of Exhibit 1 wherein appellants recognized Ambrosio Ramos’ right to act as attorney-in-fact of the claimowners. As these constitute acts of recognition by the appellants of the authority of appellee Ambrosio Ramos to sign Exhibit A and represent the claimowners in all these transactions.

    Appellant; also contend that upon the execution of Exhibit 1 on June 6, 1935, all the obligations contracted by them in Exhibit A were automatically extinguished by novation. Exhibit 1 reads as follows

    "Exhibit I

    "This agreement entered into by and between Ambrosio Ramos, of legal age, Filipino citizen and a resident of Baguio, P. I., duly authorized attorney-in-fact of the Cabayo Lode Mineral Claim, situated in the barrio of Carao, Municipal District of Bokod, Benguet, Mt. Province, P. I., and H. A. Gibbon, of legal age and a resident of Manila, P. I., and American citizen, and L. F. Rothennoefer, of legal age and a resident of Baguio, P. I., an American citizen, trustees of the Monte Cristo Gold Mining Association, and duly authorized to act for the Association.

    "WITNESSETH:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "That whereas, the parties executed a contract on March 22, 1935, whereby the claimowners of the group throng their attorney-in-fact Ambrosio Ramos have conveyed, transferred the lode mineral claims enumerated in it for the consideration of P60,000 payable in installments of P10,000 on June 1, 1935, P20,000 on September 15, 1935, and P30,000 on March 22, 1936, by the buyers, H. A. Gibbon, L. F. Rothenhoefer;

    "And whereas, the said claims have to be surveyed so as to determine if they are included in the Forest Reservation of the Philippine Government through proclamation made by the Governor-General in the year 1929;

    "Now, therefore, the parties hereto have agreed and stipulated on the following terms and conditions:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. That the claimowners through Ambrosio Ramos their attorney-in-fact agree that the amount of P2,600 be retained by the buyers to be reimbursed by them to the owners after a survey of the claims has been made and their title perfected.

    "2. That in case the title to said claims shall not be perfected, then the said amount of P2,600 shall not be reimbursed to the owners.

    "3. That the buyers shall pay the sum of P5,400 to the owners as per contract upon the execution of this instrument and the owners do hereby acknowledge receipt of said amount of P5,400.

    "4. That the sum of P2,000 of the amount of P10,000 which the buyers are to pay on June 1, 1935, in accordance with the deed of sale referred to above was paid to the owners before who now acknowledge the receipt of same.

    "In witness whereof, the parties have hereunto set their hands this 6th day of June, 1935, in the City of Baguio, P. I.

    "THE CLAIMOWNERS OF THE CABAYO

    LODE MINERAL GROUP

    "By: (Sgd.) AMBROSIO RAMOS

    "Attorney-in-fact

    "H. A. GIBBON

    "Trustee of the Monte Cristo

    Gold Mining Association

    I. F. ROTHENHOEFER

    "Trustee of the Monte Cristo

    Gold Mining Association

    ’’CIRIACO LOPEZ

    "Attorney for Ambrosio Ramos

    and the claimowners

    "TOMAS N. BLANCO

    Deputy Governor of Benguet

    "Signed in the presence of:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA }

    PHILIPPINE ISLANDS } ss.

    CITY OF BAGUIO }

    "Before me the undersigned Notary Public in and for the City of Baguio, P. I., this 6th day of June 1935, personally appeared Ambrosio Ramos in his capacity as the Attorney-in-fact for the claim-owners of the Cabayo Group as well as for himself, with his cedula No. A-37959, issued in Baguio, P. I., on April 25, 1935; H. A. Gibbon, with cedula No. F’-6142, issued at Manila, P. I., on Jan. 8, 1935 and L. F’. Rothenhoefer, with cedula No. F-32190, issued at Manila, P. I., on Feb. 28, 1935, both Trustees of the Monte Cristo Gold Mining Association who are known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged the same to be an act of their own free and voluntary will and act.

    "This instrument consists of three sheets including this sheet upon which the acknowledgment is written, and each page is signed by the parties concerned on the left hand margin.

    "In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my notarial seal this 6th day of June, 1935.

    (Sgd.) ’’AURELIO SARMIENTO

    "Notary Public

    "My commission expires December 31, 1935

    "Doc. No. 490.

    "Book No. 5.

    "Page No. 45.

    "Series of 1935"

    Novation is never presumed, and in order that an obligation may be extinguished by another which substitutes it, shall be necessary that it is 80 declared expressly, or that the old and the new obligations be incompatible in every respect (art. 1204, Civil Code). There is absolutely of provision in Exhibit 1 above transcribed which expressly or even impliedly repeals that of Exhibit A, and much less do we find any incompatibility between the two documents, in the absence of which novation does not take place. At the learned trial judge says, Exhibit 1 is a mere supplementary agreement in virtue of which the parties herein confirm and ratify the contents of Exhibit A. The mere fact that Exhibit 1 contains an additional stipulation to the effect that of the purchase price of the claims, the appellants have the right to retain the sum of P2,600 until the completion of the survey of those claims by the appellants, does not m any manner constitute novation of contract as this stipulation serves only to supplement and amplify that of Exhibit A, there being no change or alteration of the object and condition of that contract. That this is the intention of the parties is furthermore shown by the fact that Exhibit 1 confirms and ratites the payments made by the appellants to the appellee Ambrosio Ramos. The evidence shows that payments of P2,000 and P5,400 referred to in Exhibit 1 were elected on April 2, 1935, and June 6, 1935, respectively, and that payment on this last date was made of the very same day of the execution of Exhibit 1.

    We notice, however, that the lower court sentenced the defendants-appellants to pay the plaintiffs-appellees the sum of P52,600, jointly and severally. There is nothing in the contract of sale, Exhibit A, which justices the conclusion that the appellants are solidarity liable to the payment of that obligation. The permanent portion of Exhibit A reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The consideration for the said sale in the sum of sixty thousand pesos (60,000), Philippines currency, to be paid by the said H. A. Gibbons, J. C. Cowper, L. F. Rothenhoefer, George Caldwell and Harley McVay within one (1) year from and after the execution of these presents, to Amorosio Ramos, our duly constituted attorney in fact.

    The concurrence of two or more creditors or of two or more debtors with respect to the same obligation does not imply that each of the former is entitled to demand the performance of the obligation in its entirety or that earn of the latter is bound to perform it. This shall be the case only when expressly so provided by the terms of the obligation, and the parties are bound in solido. (Art. 1137, Civil Code.) The presumption, in the absence of stipulation as to how certain debtors are bound, is that they are bound jointly (Compañia Gral. de Tabacos v. Obed, 13 Phil., 391; Pimentel v. Gutierrez, 14 Phil., 49; Isaac v. Bray and Pardo, 30 Phil., 533; Lino Luna v. Arcenas, 3 Phil., 80; Agoncillo and Mariño v. , Javier, 38 Phil., 424). Unless otherwise provided by the terms of the obligations to which article 1137 relates, the credit or the debt shall by deemed to have been divided into as many equal parts as there are debtors or creditors, and shall be regarded as separate and distinct credits or debts (art. 1138, ibid.) . The assignment of error on this point is well taken, and we hold that the lower court committed an error in sentencing the appellants to pay the appellees the sum of P52,600 jointly and severally. Appellant’s liability under the contract of sale Exhibit A is joint (mancomunada) and not several (solidaria). (Sharruf v. Tayabas Land Co. and Ginainati, 37 Phil., 655; Jaucian v. Querol, 38 Phil., 707.)

    The other errors assigned need not be considered.

    With the modification above indicated, the decision appealed from is confirmed, with costs against the appellants in both instances. So ordered.

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

    Separate Opinions


    CONCEPCION, J., concurring and dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The present action seeks to compel the defendants to pay the entire purchase price of eighty (80) mining claims known as the Cabayo Group which they had purchased from the Plaintiffs-Appellees.

    The defendants-appellants put up various defenses, among them, that the plaintiffs-appellees are not the owners and actual possessors and occupants of said mining claims at the time the deed of sale was executed, wherefore, they had no right to make a valid sale thereof; that the sale is void because no proper appraisal of the aforesaid mining claims had been made by the Bureau of Science; that the plaintiffs having failed to make the proper survey of said mining claims, they are precluded from demanding compliance by the defendants-appellants of the contract; and that the said mining claims not having been registered in the Province of Nueva Vizcaya, where they are situated, the sale should be deemed rescinded.

    Resolving these questions, the majority states:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The claims here having been validly located in 1934, before the approval of our Constitution, and it appearing in the contract Exhibit A that the plaintiffs are the locators, possessors and owners’ of said claims, it is sufficient to direct attention to the rule that even without patent, the possessory right of a qualified locator of the discovery of minerals upon the claim is a property right, unaffected by the fact that the paramount title to the land is in the government (Gold Creek Mining Corporation v. Rodriguez and Abadilla, 37 Off. Gaz., 1662; Salacot Mining Co. v. Rodriguez, G. R. No. 45860, March 20, 1939; Salacot Mining Co. v. Abadilla, G. R. No. 45861, March 20, 1939; McDaniel; v. Apacible and Cuisia, 42 Phil., 753). As a property right, it is susceptible of transfer by conveyance, inheritance or device."cralaw virtua1aw library

    I dissent from the foregoing holdings of the majority. For the same reasons stated in my dissent in the first three aforecited cases, I cannot agree that, a locator of mining claims, by the mere location of a mining claim, acquires the right of ownership over said claim, despite the fact that the paramount title to the land still remains in the government. In my humble opinion, while the amount or the alienation of the mining claims has not been paid and the patent has not been issued by the government, it cannot be said that the locator has acquired the right of ownership thereof. The location of mining claims only gives the right of possession, a right which may be alienated together with all the works or improvements made on the said claims. Hence, in the present case, the plaintiffs-appellees have been able to sell or convey to the defendants-appellants only all the rights inherent in the location of the mining claims, such as the possession and enjoyment thereof and compliance with all the necessary requisites to obtain the patent, before the date of the mauguration of the Commonwealth, because from said date, mining claims can no longer be the subject of alienation under the Constitution.

    But inasmuch at the defendants-appellants, when they decided to purchase the mining claims in question, knew, or could not have ignored, as a legal question, what rights the vendors had or did not have, they can be compelled to comply with the contract of purchase and sale, Exhibit A.

    With my dissent as to the extent and nature of the rights which could be, and in fact have been, the subject of Sale and alienation, I concur in all other respects with the majority decision.

    G.R. No. 45418   April 18, 1939 - AMBROSIO RAMOS, ET AL. v. H. A. GIBBON, ET AL. <br /><br />067 Phil 371


    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