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. 43585   May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN<br /><br />068 Phil 234

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 43585. May 27, 1939.]

    RIZALINA DE LA ROSA ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

    Pastor Kimpo for Appellants.

    Manuel de la Rosa for Appellees.

    Undersecretary of Justice Melencio for the Government.

    SYLLABUS


    1. RIGHT OF WIDOW UNDER SECTION 103 OF ACT NO. 2874 (PUBLIC LAND ACT); ACT No. 3517 AMENDING ACT NO. 2874 HAS NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT. — Section 103 of Act NO. 2874 provides that, if the applicant for a homestead shall die before the issuance of the patent, he shall be succeeded in his rights and obligations by his widow, in whose favor the patent shall be issued after she has complied with all the legal requirements This Act No. 2874 was amended by Act No. 3517, which took effect on February 4, 1929, in the sense that, instead of the widow, the applicant shall be succeeded in his rights and obligations by his legal heirs. Act NO. 3517 has no retroactive effect. The final proof that the legal requirements had been complied with, for the issuance of the homestead patent, was submitted on January 11, 1928, and accepted by the Director of Lands on February 1st of the same year. On that date Act NO. 2874, and not Act NO. 3517, was still in force, under which the widow was entitled to have the certificate issued in her name.

    2. ID.; ID. — That this proof was approved by the Director of Lands on May 6, 1930, only, while Act No. 3517 was already in force, does not affect the right acquired by the widow, if not to the ownership of the land derived from the patent, because this has not yet been issued, at least to the issuance of said patent in her name, as was done by the Director of Lands. The effects of the approval of the final proof should retroact to the date the proof was submitted. The investigation which the Director of Lands conducts before his approval is only intended to verify the facts submitted with the proof. If they are verified, and this is all that the law requires, the approval is given and the right to the patent then arises on the strength of the facts thus verified. Consequently, the approval of the proof means that the right to the patent came into being from the time the proof was submitted, as from that time the fact which give rise to the right already existed. If the law then conferred this right on the widow, a subsequent law cannot divest her of such right. The delay of the Director of Lands in verifying the facts referred to in the final proof should not change the effects thereof.


    D E C I S I O N


    AVANCEÑA, C.J. :


    Bonifacio de la Rosa was first married to Narcisa Regidor, with whom he had three children, named Julian, Rizalina and Eustaquia. Julian died without leaving any descendant. After the death of Narcisa Regidor, Bonifacio de la Rosa contracted a second marriage with Maximiana Edralin, with whom, he had a child, named Salunica.

    Bonifacio de la Rosa migrated to Mindanao with his second wife and the three children of his first marriage with Narcisa Regidor, establishing himself in Salunayan, municipal district of Midsayap, Province of Cotabato, where he applied for a homestead measuring twelve (12) hectares, eight (8) ares and sixty-seven (67) centares. He declared and tilled this land with the help of his second wife, Maximiana Edralin, and of the children of his first marriage. On December 17, 1927, Bonifacio de la Rosa died. On February 1, 1928, the Director of Lands wrote a letter, still addressed to Bonifacio de la Rosa, with the information that he had received the papers relative to the final proof which he submitted in connection with his homestead and that this proof was accepted on condition that it would not be approved until the statements set out therein are verified. On May 6, 1930, this final proof was approved, and as all the fees corresponding to said homestead had been paid and all the legal requirements had been complied with, the Director of Lands issued in favor of Maximiana Edralin, as the widow of Bonifacio de la Rosa, the corresponding certificate of title, which was noted in the office of the registrar of deeds of Cotabato on November 22 of the same Year.

    On September 27, 1932 the children of Bonifacio de la Rosa by his two marriages filed a complaint against Maximiana Edralin in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, asking that the certificate of title issued in her name be cancelled and another be issued in the name of Rizalina, Eustaquia and Salunica de la Rosa, children of the deceased Bonifacio de la Rosa. Sustaining the complaint, the court declared the certificate of title issued by the Director of Lands on May G, 1930 null and void, and ordered the said Director of Lands to issue another in favor of Rizalina de la Rosa, Eustaquia de la Rosa and Salunica de la Rosa. From this decision the appeal now before this court was taken.

    Section 103 of Act No. 2871 provides that, if the applicant for a homestead shall die before the issuance of the patent, he shall be succeeded in his rights and obligations by his widow, in whose favor the patent shall be issued after she has complied with all the legal requirements. This Act No. 2874 was amended by Act No. 3517, which took effect on February 4. 1929, in the sense that, instead of the widow, the applicant shall be succeeded in his rights and obligations by his legal heirs.

    The question thus to be answered boils down to the law applicable to the case, whether Act No. 2874 or the amendatory Act No. 3517. The court applied the latter and so declared null and void the certificate issued by the Director of Lands in the name of the widow pursuant to the former. We hold that the appealed decision is erroneous.

    Act No. 3517 has no retroactive effect. The final proof that the legal requirements had been complied with, for the issuance of the homestead patent, was submitted on January 11, 1928, and accepted by the Director of Lands on February 1st of the same year. On that date Act No. 2874, and not Act No. 3517, was still in force, under which the widow was entitled to have the certificate of title issued in her name.

    That this proof was approved by the Director of Lands on May 6, 1930 only, while Act No. 3517 was already in force, does not affect the right acquired by the widow, if not to the ownership of the land derived from the patent, because this has not yet been issued, at least to the issuance of said patent in her name, as wad done by the Director of Lands. The effects of the approval of the final proof should retroact to the date the proof was submitted. The investigation which the Director of Lands conducts before his approval is only intended to verify the facts submitted with the proof. If they are verified, and this is all that the law requires, the approval is given, and the right to the patent then arises on the strength of the facts thus verified. Consequently, the approval of the proof means that the right to the patent came into being from the time the proof was submitted, as from that time the facts which give rise to the right already existed. If the law then conferred this right on the widow, a subsequent law cannot divest her of such right. The delay of the Director of Lands in verifying the facts referred to in the final proof should not change the effects thereof.

    In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision is reversed, and the certificate of title issued by the Director of Lands in the name of Maximiana Edralin is declared valid and binding, with the costs to the appellees. So ordered.

    Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 43585   May 27, 1939 - RIZALINA DE LA ROSA v. MAXIMIANA EDRALIN<br /><br />068 Phil 234


    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