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
 

   
May-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45383 May 2, 1939 - MARIA V. SERAPIO v. MARIANO SERAPIO, ET AL.

    067 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. 45502 May 2, 1939 - SAPOLIN CO., INC. v. CORNELIO BALMACEDA

    067 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. 45915 May 2, 1939 - ESCOLASTICO BUENAVENTURA v. GERINO Z. LAYLAY

    067 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 3, 1939 - TIBURCIO SUMERA v. EUGENIO VALENCIA

    067 Phil 721

  • G.R. No. 45322 May 4, 1939 - WALTER BULL v. REDO L. YATCO

    067 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. 45524 May 4, 1939 - MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    067 Phil 733

  • G.R. No. 45969 May 4, 1939 - TAN TIAH v. Yu JOSE

    067 Phil 739

  • G.R. No. 45122 May 5, 1939 - VISAYAN SURETY & INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FRUCTUOSA TABARES

    067 Phil 743

  • G.R. No. 45496 May 5, 1939 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    068 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 45662 May 5, 1939 - JUAN GOROSTIAGA v. MANUELA SARTE

    068 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. 45889 May 5, 1939 - CRISPINO ENRIQUEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 45987 May 5, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAYAT

    068 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 46405 May 6, 1939 - RAYMUNDO TRANS. CO., INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    068 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 45667 May 9, 1939 - HARRY IVES SHOEMAKER v. TONDEÑA

    068 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. 45696 May 9, 1939 - GIL BUENDIA v. VICENTE SOTTO

    068 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 45865 May 10, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TI YEK JUAT

    068 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 45993 May 11, 1939 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. FABIAN R. MILLAR

    068 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 45318 May 12, 1939 - JACINTO MESINA v. PETRA DELINO

    068 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 45427 May 12, 1939 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. TRUST CO.

    068 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. 45433 May 12, 1939 - ROSARIO GONZALEZ CASTRO VIUDA DE AZAOLA v. GASTON O’FARRELL

    068 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. 45648 May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA

    068 Phil 85

  • G.R. Nos. 46119-46121 May 12, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO BELTRAN

    068 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 46584 May 13, 1939 - MARIANO MARCOS v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 45616 May 16, 1939 - FELICIANO SANCHEZ v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA

    068 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 45543 May 17, 1939 - SURIGAO MINE EXPLORATION CO. v. C. HARRIS

    068 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. 46432 May 17, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORICO MARTIN

    068 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. 45924 May 18, 1939 - CELESTINO RODRIGUEZ v. EUGENIO YAP

    068 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. 45160 May 23, 1939 - JOSE GREY v. SERAFIN FABIE

    068 Phil 128

  • G.R. Nos. 45705-45707 May 23, 1939 - TEODORA DOMINGO v. MARGARITA DAVID

    068 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 45842 May 23, 1939 - MARCARET STEWART MITCHELL MCMASTER v. HENRY REISSMANN & CO.

    068 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 46177 May 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR TAGASA

    068 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 46437 May 23, 1939 - EUFEMIO P. TESORO v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    068 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 45213 May 24, 1939 - H. P. L. JOLLYE v. EMETERIO BARCELON

    068 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. 45486 May 24, 1939 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. JOSEFA VALENCIA VIUDA DE MOLINA

    068 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 45218 May 26, 1939 - CONSUELO CEMBRANO v. CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA DE GONZALEZ

    068 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 45446 May 25, 1939 - C. N. HODGES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 45530 May 25, 1939 - CHINA INSURANCE v. Y. CHONG

    068 Phil 189

  • G.R. No. 45615 May 25, 1939 - TEOFILO SINCO v. SILVESTRA TEVES

    068 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 46000 May 25, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. BAES

    068 Phil 203

  • G.R. No. 46024 May 25, 1939 - SOTERA ARAVEJO v. ALFONSO DORONILA

    068 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 46078 May 25, 1939 - GREGORIA REYNOSO v. JOSE E. TOLENTINO

    068 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 45189 May 26, 1939 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATE DEV’T. CO., INC. v. JUAN POSADAS

    068 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 45264 May 26, 1939 - JOSEFA CASTELLTORT v. BALBINA PASION

    068 Phil 224

  • G.R. No. 45736 May 26, 1939 - CONCEPCION LOPEZ v. ADELA LOPEZ

    068 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 46100 May 26, 1939 - ALFREDO HIDALGO RIZAL v. JOSEFA RIZAL MERCADO

    068 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. 43585 May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN

    068 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 45307 May 27, 1939 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    068 Phil 238

  • G.R. No. 45324 May 27, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABADINAS

    068 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 45374 May 27, 1939 - MANUEL RODRIGUES v. DANIEL TIRONA

    068 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 45608 May 27, 1939 - JESUS AZCONA v. PACIFIC COMMERCIAL CO.

    068 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 46248 May 27, 1939 - TIMOTEO TAROMA v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    068 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 45350 May 29, 1939 - BACHBACH MOTOR CO. v. ESTEBAN ICARAÑGAL

    068 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. 45121 May 31, 1939 - DEMETRIO GAMBOA v. SERAFIN GAMBOA

    068 Phil 304

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 45648   May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA<br /><br />068 Phil 85

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 45648. May 12, 1939.]

    THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, applicant, v. ANICETO ABA ET AL., claimants; MELITONA REGIS and her husband LUCIO RIDAD, petitioners-appellants; JULIO LEDESMA, FELIX MONTENEGRO, CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS and COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, Oppositors-Appellees.

    Enrique Medina for Appellant.

    Jose E. Romero for Appellees.

    Miguel Cuenco and Jose Romero for appellee Ledesma

    No appearance for other parties.

    SYLLABUS


    1. REGISTRATION OF LAND; PETITION FOR REVIEW UNDER SECTION 38 OF ACT No. 496. — . . . A petition for review under section 38 of Act No. 496 may be filed at any time after the rendition of the court’s decision and before the expiration of one year from the entry of the final decree of registration." (Rivera v. Moran 48 Phil., 839, 840.)

    2. ID.; ID.; INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE. — There is nothing of consequence in the fact that the lot in question has passed to third parties. Such third parties, having acquired interest in the land before any final decree has been issued, cannot be regarded as innocent purchasers for value within the meaning of section 38 of Act No. 496. (Rivera v. Moran, supra.)

    3. ID.; ID.; PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION. — It is contended that any action which the petitioner-appellant might have to claim any interest in the lot in question has prescribed. She was, however, a minor when her cause of action has accrued. And, according to section 42 of act No. 190, she may bring such action within three (3) years after her minority is removed. As she was born on March 9, 1901, she became of age March 9, 1922, and therefore she could bring her action on or before March 9, 1925. Her claim was filed in the cadastral proceedings on January 30, 1924, that is, before, her action had prescribed.

    4. ID.; ID.; CHARACTER OF CLAIM FILED CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS. — The claim is equivalent to an application for the registration of real property, and, therefore, may be considered as an action in rem. (Director of Lands v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 41 Phil., 120; Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921; De los Reyes v. Razon, 38 Phil., 480; Lopez v. Director of Lands, 47 Phil, 23; and Lopez Castelo v. Director of Lands, 48 Phil., 589.)

    5. ID.; ID.; LACHES. — Petitioner is alleged to be guilty of laches, for she filed her petition about seven (7) years after the rendition of the judgment. But, as alleged and proved by her, she has never been notified of the date of the trial nor of judgment rendered by the court, and she filed her petition immediately upon discovery of the fraud. Besides, the oppositors cannot now complain of laches, for they themselves are also guilty of laches as they have filed, until now, to ensure the issuance of a decree on the lot in question.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, J.:


    In the proceedings instituted by the Director of Lands in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros for the cadastral survey of the municipality of Tanjay, an answer was filed by Severa Zerna and her six (6) grandchildren, one of whom being Melitona Regis, now petitioner-appellant. The answer, which was later amended, alleges ownership thru inheritance over lot No. 2377. similar answers were filed by Alex Montenegro and Guardiano Florin, each of them likewise claiming ownership over the lot in question. On December 18, 1923, upon petition of Felix Montenegro, this lot was subdivided into lots Nos. 5177, 5178-A and 5178-B, the last named having been subsequently converted into lot No. 5330, one-sixth (A) of which is now claimed by the petitioner-appellant. On March 29, 1926, the lower court adjudicated said lot No 5178-B or No. 5330 to Felix which in part reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Lote No. 5178-B, con las mejoras existentes en el, a favor de la sociedad conyugal de los esposos Felix Montenegro y Cecilia Gozalez. Se hase constar que este lote,de terreno, esta sujeto a los mismos gravamenes mencionados en la decision sobre los lotes 3714 y 3715 y otros. (Vease la decision sobre estos lotes en la pag. 42.) El lote original de estos tres ultimos lotes 5177, 5178-A y 5178-B, que era el lote No. 2377, que ha sido subdividido en 2377-A y 2377-B ha sido reclamado en un principio por Felix Montenegro, Guardiano Florin, Severa Zerna y coherederos y Marciana Jabel, por medio de los correspondientes escritos decontestation, pero estos en corte abierta, han manifestado y declarado expresemente, retirando dichos escritos en favor de los respectivos adjudicatarios ya arriba mencionados, segun consta en el record."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On January 13, 1933, petitioner filed a petition for review on ground of fraud. The alleged fraud consisted in that lot No. 5330, having been claimed by several persons, was classified as contested lot and, therefore, was not to be tried on the date fixed in the notice published in the Official Gazette for the hearing of the cadastral case, but on a separate date to be fixed later by the court notice upon all the parties claimant; that for that reason, the petitioner-appellant went back to her residence waiting for the notice of the trial; that, in the meantime, Severa Zerna, induced by Felix Montenegro, entered into a compromise with him, and both, knowing that the herein petitioner-appellant was not present and took no part in the compromise, made it appear to the court that all the other claimants, including the petitioner-appellant herein, have withdraw it; that on account of the compromise the lot in question was re-classified as uncontested lot, tried as such and a warded to Felix Montenegro and his wife, and that the petitioner-appellant has never been notified of such trial nor of the judgment rendered. All there facts constituting the alleged fraud are supported by affidavits. The "Central Azucarera de Bais," the Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas," and Julio Ledesma, claiming to be innocent purchasers of portions of the lot in question, filed their respective oppositions. Felix Montenegro filed his too.

    The trial court denied the petition; hence this appeal.

    It should be noted that when the petition for review of the decision was filed, no decree nor certificate of title had yet been issued in favor of Felix Montenegro nor to any of the supposed innocent purchasers for value. The fundamental question then for determination is whether the petition may be entertained prior to the issuance of the decree. We are of the opinion, and so hold, that this case is controlled by the decision of this court in the affirmed in the case of Morales v. Paredes (55 Phil., 565) in which we expresses the following view:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . It is conceded that no decree of registration has been entered and section 38 of the land Registration Act provides that a petition for review of such a decree on the grounds of fraud must be filed ’within one year after entry of the decree.’ Giving this provision a literal interpretation, it may at first blush seem that the petition for review cannot be presented until the final decree has been entered. But on further reflection, it is obvious that such could not have been the intention of the Legislature and that what it meant would have been better expressed by stating that such petitions must be presented before the expiration of one year from the entry of the decree. Statutes must be given a reasonable construction and there can be no possible reason for requiring the complaining party to wait until the final decree is entered before urging his claim of fraud. We therefore hold that a petition for review under section 38, supra, may be filed at any time after the rendition of the court’s decision and before the expiration of one year from the entry of the final decree of registration."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In the case of Government of the Philippines Island v. Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija (49 Phil., 433), a motion for review of the decision was presented to the trial court about seventeen (17) months after said decision was rendered but before the issuance of the final decree. We there held that, under such circumstances, the motion was presented in time.

    There is nothing of consequence in the fact that the lot in question has passed to third parties. Such third parties, having acquired interest in the land before any final decree has been issued, cannot be regarded as innocent purchasers for value within the meaning of section 38 of Act No. 496 (Rivera v. Moran, supra.)

    Appellee Julio Ledesma cities part of the decision of this court in the case of Government of the Philippine Island v. Italia (59 Phil., 712, 714), which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . in the case of Elviña v. Filamor and Domingo (56 Phil., 305), and in that of De los Reyes v. De Villa (48 Phil., 227), it has already been held that, when the decree of registration has not yet been issued, the proper remedy should be that indicates in said section 113 of Act No. 190, not that indicated in section 38 of Act No. 496."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It is maintained that this case has abrogated the doctrine we have announced in Rivera v. Moran, supra. The statement above quoted is more obiter dictum, as can readily be seen from a perusal of the decision, and, as such, it lacks the force of an adjudication. (Morales v. Paredes, supra.)

    It is contended that any action which the petitioner-appellant might have to claim any interest in the lot in question has prescribed. She was, however, a minor when her cause of action has accrued. And, according to section 42 of Act No. 190, she may bring such action within three (3) years after her minority is removed. as she was born on March 9, 1901, she could bring her action on or before March 9, 1925. Her claim was filed in the cadastral proceedings on January 30, 1924, that is, before her action had prescribed. It is argued that the filing of such claim is not equivalent to a commencement of an action. That claim is equivalent to an application for the registration of real property, and, therefore, may be considered as an action in rem. (Director of Lands v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 41 Phil., 120 Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, 37 Phil., 921; De los Reyes v. Razon, 38 Phil., 480; Lopez v. Director of Lands 47 Phil., 23; and Lopez Castelo v. Director of Lands, 48 Phil., 589.)

    Petitioner is alleged to be guilty of laches, for she filed her petition about seven (7) years after the rendition of the judgment. But, as alleged and proved by her, she has never been notified of the date of the trial nor of the judgment rendered by the court, and she filed her petition immediately upon discovery of the fraud. Besides, the oppositors cannot now complain of laches, for they themselves are also guilty of laches as they have failed, until now, to secure the issuance of a decree on the lot in question.

    Order is reversed with costs against the appellees.

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

    G.R. No. 45648   May 12, 1939 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ANICETO ABA<br /><br />068 Phil 85


    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