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
 

   
November-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 44260 November 2, 1938 - MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA v. MARIA PAZ MARCIANA GUIDOTE, ET AL.

    066 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 46375 November 2, 1938 - GERONIMO SANTIAGO v. HERMENEGILDO ATIENZA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 44372 November 3, 1938 - BENITO GARCIA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    066 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. 44493 November 3, 1938 - MARIANO ANGELES v. ELENA SAMIA

    066 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 46270 November 3, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS L. DE LA PEÑA

    066 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46085 November 4, 1938 - BULACAN BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 44552 November 7, 1938 - ONG LIONG TIAK v. LUNETA MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

    066 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 44634 November 9, 1938 - BALTAZAR ALUNEN, ET AL. v. TILAN

    066 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 44778 November 9, 1938 - PROVINCE OF TAYABAS v. SIMEON PEREZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 44802 November 16, 1938 - FRANCISCO SABAS v. FRANCISCO GARMA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 44843 November 17, 1938 - CARLOS YOUNG v. FRANCISCO M. BLANCO

    066 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 44911 November 21, 1938 - ALEJANDRO IBARRA v. SEGUNDO AGUSTIN

    066 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 44257 November 22, 1938 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 45792 November 22, 1938 - SWAN, CULBERTSON & FRITZ v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    066 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. 45046 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLES BANK & TRUST CO. v. MANUEL OLONDRIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 537

  • G.R. No. 44518 November 23, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YU GUICOC LAM

    066 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 44837 November 23, 1938 - SOCORRO LEDESMA, ET AL. v. CONCHITA MCLACHLIN, ET AL.

    066 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 44974 November 23, 1938 - W.S. PRICE v. CEFERINO YBANES, ET AL.

    066 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 45028 November 25, 1938 - MAXIMO ABARY, ET AL. v. FIDELINO AGAWIN

    066 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. 44671 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. ANTONIO E. RUIZ, ET AL.

    066 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 44774 November 26, 1938 - FIDELITY AND SURETY CO. OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL A. ANSALDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. 44834 November 26, 1938 - LA PREVISORA FILIPINA v. FELIX Z. LEDDA

    066 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 44947 November 26, 1938 - ANTONIO LABRADOR, ET AL. v. EMILIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    066 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 45040 November 26, 1938 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JULIO TUGAB

    066 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 45105 November 26, 1938 - MACONDRAY & CO., INC. v. MACARIO JOSE

    066 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 44602 November 28, 1938 - MARIA CALMA v. ESPERANZA TAÑEDO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 44606 November 28, 1938 - VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO v. CATALINO BATACLAN

    066 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 44683 November 28, 1938 - JOAQUIN NAVARRO v. FERNANDO AGUILA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 45070 November 28, 1938 - CHIN GUAN v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

    066 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. 45260 November 28, 1938 - BARBARA ECHAVARRIA v. ROMAN SARMIENTO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 46267 November 28, 1938 - FRANCISCO ZANDUETA v. SIXTO DE LA COSTA

    066 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 44931 November 29, 1938 - FELIX BILANG v. ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC.

    066 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 45169 November 29, 1938 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. PASAY TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    066 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 45344 November 29, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE P. ANCHETA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. 46040 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 46133 November 29, 1938 - PLACIDO ROSAL v. DIONISIO FORONDA, ET AL.

    066 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. 46174 November 29, 1938 - PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC. v. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ

    066 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 46262 November 29, 1938 - CINE LIGAYA v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

    066 Phil 659

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 44947   November 26, 1938 - ANTONIO LABRADOR, ET AL. v. EMILIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL. <br /><br />066 Phil 579

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. 44947. November 26, 1938.]

    ANTONIO LABRADOR and FELIPA CANONIZADO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EMILIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

    Teotimo Duque, for Appellants.

    Valle & Valle, for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. DESCENT AND DISTRIBUTION; CLAIM FOR THE SALES PRICE BY THE PURCHASERS OF A HOMESTEAD IN A VOID SALE. — Upon the death of a person who has obtained land by way of homestead and who has sold it within the five years from the issuance of the homestead patent or title, because the said sale is void, the purchasers can only recover the price which they have paid by filing their claim with the committee on claims and appraisal to be named in the intestate proceedings which may be instituted.


    D E C I S I O N


    VILLA-REAL, J.:


    This is an appeal taken by the plaintiffs, Antonio Labrador and Felipa Canonizado, from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac dismissing the complaint with the costs to the plaintiffs.

    In support of their appeal the appellants assign the following errors allegedly committed by the trial court in the said decision, to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. The lower court erred in not ordering the defendants to return to the plaintiffs the amount of P1,000 which the latter had paid for the land in question.

    "2. The lower court erred in dismissing the complaint in question with the costs to the plaintiffs and in denying the motion for new trial."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The facts found proven by the lower court, which are all that we can consider in deciding the legal questions raised in this appeal, are the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The plaintiff’s in this case, Antonio Labrador and Felipa Canonizado, sometime in April, 1928, acquired from one Santiago de los Santos, father of the defendants Emiliano de los Santos and Nicolas de los Santos, for the price of one thousand pesos, a land which Santiago de los Santos, in turn, had acquired by way of homestead and over which he had obtained the corresponding original certificate of title on January 15, 1927, after submitting his final proof of the homestead as required by law, on April 3, 1922. Upon the death of De los Santos, his children, the aforesaid defendants, executed on November 7, 1932, a deed of extrajudicial partition of the said land, and upon motion dated October 31, 1933 which they filed with this Court of First Instance, they succeeded in cancelling original certificate of title No. 724 in the name of their father Santiago, de los Santos and in having issued, in lieu thereof, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 8296, in the name of the same defendants. . . .

    "According to the evidence of the plaintiffs, some days before the defendant executed the deed of absolute sale Exhibit A, Santiago de los Santos sold the land to them, receiving from them the amount of P1,000, and delivering to them, in turn, the title and plan of the land, Exhibits B and B-1. Thereafter, that is on the 2d or 8th of April 1928, they came to this capital to entrust the drawing up of the deed to the attorney-at-law and notary public Teotimo Duque, who, after examining the title, told the plaintiffs and Santiago de los Santos, who came with the defendant Emiliano de lost Santos, that Santiago de los Santos could not sell the property due to the non- expiration of the five years provided by law, that is, section 116 of Act No. 2874. Felipa Canonizado then required of Santiago de los Santos the return of the P1,000, but Santiago de los Santos said that it was impossible to return the same because he had paid his debts with said money; and in view of the insistence of the parties and of their promise not to bring any suit, the notary public Duque drafted the deed Exhibit A, which was executed by Santiago de los Santos in the presence of Emiliano de los Santos."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The first question to be resolved in the present appeal is that raised in the first assignment of alleged error, which is whether or not the trial court erred in not ordering the defendants to return to the plaintiffs the amount of P1,000 which the latter had paid for the land in question.

    According to the above-narrated facts, as found proven by the lower court, the land in suit was the property of the deceased Santiago de los Santos, who had applied for and acquired it as a homestead, having obtained original certificate of title No. 724, and homestead patent No. 10140 therefor on January 15, 1927, after having submitted, on April 3, 1922, his final proof of occupancy and labor as required by law. On April 2, 1928, that is, one year, two months and seven days after the issuance of the aforesaid original certificate of title No. 724 and homestead patent No. 10140, Santiago de los Santos sold the aforesaid land to the herein plaintiffs Antonio Labrador and Felisa Canonizado (Exhibit A). Upon the death of the said Santiago de los Santos, his children, the herein defendants and appellees, executed a deed of extrajudicial partition of said land, and on motion dated October 31, 1933 (Exhibit X), they obtained the cancellation of original certificate of title No. 724, issued in the name of their deceased father, Santiago de los Santos, and the issuance of transfer certificate of title No. 8296 in their name.

    The alienation by Santiago de los Santos of his land in favor of the plaintiffs Antonio Labrador and Felipa Canonizado was made in violation of the provision of section 116 of Act No. 2874, as amended by section 23 of Act No. 3517, which prohibits the encumbering or alienation of a land acquired as a homestead within five years from the issuance of the homestead patent, wherefore, it is illegal and void. As the declaration of nullity of a contract void ab initio operates to restore things in the state and condition in which they were found before the execution thereof, the land in question was returned to the ownership of Santiago de los Santos, in his lifetime, and that of his children, after his death, with the obligation on the part of said Santiago de los Santos to return to the purchasers, the plaintiffs, the price of the sale, with interest (art. 1303, Civil Code). Santiago de los Santos being the vendor, had the declaration of nullity taken place while he was living, he would have to return said price to the purchasers; but having died before the declaration of nullity, the plaintiffs should have presented their claim for the return of the price in the testate or intestate proceedings of the deceased, and they cannot go against the children of the latter inasmuch as the said children inherit with the benefit of inventory and only that remaining of the inheritance after paying the indebtedness of the testate or intestate. While it is true that the defendants inherited the land in question, the price of the sale cannot be charged thereon, because the said section 116 of Act No. 2874, as amended by section 23 of Act No. 3517, prohibits the subjection of such land to the payment of said obligation which was contracted within five years from the issuance of the homestead patent, as above stated. In any event, the plaintiffs may institute the intestate proceedings of Santiago de los Santos and file their claim before the committee on claims and appraisal to be named therein.

    For the foregoing considerations , we are of the opinion and so hold, that upon the death of a person who has obtained land by way of homestead and who has sold it within the five years from the issuance of the homestead patent or title, because the said sale is void, the purchasers can only recover the price which they have paid by filing their claim with the committee on claims and appraisal to be named in the intestate proceedings which may be instituted.

    Wherefore, with the sole modification that there be reserved, as there is hereby reserved, the right of the plaintiffs-appellants to institute the intestate proceedings of Santiago de los Santos and to file their claim with the committee on claims and appraisal to be named therein, the appealed judgment is affirmed in all other respects, without special pronouncement as to the costs. So ordered.

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

    G.R. No. 44947   November 26, 1938 - ANTONIO LABRADOR, ET AL. v. EMILIANO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL. <br /><br />066 Phil 579


    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