Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1940 > January 1940 Decisions > G.R. No. 46947 January 20, 1940 - JEREMIAS MENDOZA v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

069 Phil 398:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 46947. January 20, 1940.]

JEREMIAS MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE ALEJO LABRADOR, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, DOMINADOR CHIPECO, Provincial Sheriff of Laguna, and ENRIQUE BAUTISTA, Respondents.

Castillo, Samaniego & De Dios for Petitioner.

Eusebio M. Lopez, Zacarias B. Ticzon, and Zosimo D. Tanalega for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. CERTIORARI; NOTATION OF JUDICIAL SALE UPON CERTIFICATE OF TITLE; PURCHASER IN BAD FAITH. — It should be observed that the levy of execution and the certificate of sale executed by the sheriff in 1934 in favor of E. B. were noted on the back of Certificate of Title No. 15495. When, therefore, on April 24, 1939, V. D. filed in the guardianship proceedings of R and C. A. civil case No. 3242 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna a motion seeking authority to sell the same property covered by the same certificate of title, the guardian would not plead ignorance of the interest of B in the property, and when M acquired the sale, he was also charged with that knowledge.

2. ID.; NECESSITY OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. — Furthermore, it does not appear that the question of the alleged lack of jurisdiction was brought to the attention of the respondent Judge by means of a motion for reconsideration. (Herrera v. Barretto and Joaquin, 25 Phil., 245; Uy Chu v. Imperial and Uy Du, 44 Phil., 27; Amante v. Sison and Manzanero, 60 Phil. 949; Vivencio v. Sison, 34 Off. Gaz., 1142; Bongon Vda. de Manzanero v. Court of First Instance of Batangas Et. Al. 34 Off. Gaz., 1579.)


D E C I S I O N


LAUREL, J.:


This is an original action for certiorari submitted for decision upon the petition and the answer from which it appears that by virtue of a writ of execution issued in civil case No. 6050 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, entitled Gregorio Atienza v. Enrique Bautista, the provincial sheriff of Laguna, after levying upon a parcel of land covered by Certificate of Title No. 15495, sold the same at public auction on July 19, 1934 to the herein respondent, Enrique Bautista, who was the highest bidder. Both the levy of execution and the certificate of sale executes by the sheriff in favor of the respondent, Enrique Bautista, were noted on the back of Certificate of Title No. 15495. On October 2, 1934, Ruben Atienza and Conrado Atienza, represented by their mother, Valentina Dionglay, instituted civil cases Nos. 6562 and 6708 in the Court of First Instance of Laguna against the respondent, Enrique Bautista, and the provincial sheriff of Laguna, seeking the annulment of the aforesaid levy of execution and certificate of sale, on the ground that the land thus sold belonged to the said Ruben and Conrado Atienza and was, therefore, not liable for the debts of Gregorio Atienza. On September 21, 1936, the Court of First Instance of Laguna rendered judgment in said civil cases Nos. 6562 and 6708 declaring the levy of execution and the sheriff’s sale above referred to illegal, from which judgment the respondent, Enrique Bautista, appealed to the Court of Appeals which, on November 26, 1938, rendered the following decision:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In conclusion, the plaintiffs took the donations subject to the payment of the donor’s obligation to the defendant Enrique Bautista. The rights acquired by the plaintiffs under the donations consist only of the equities of redemption. These rights the plaintiffs may now exercise, and, since the one year period for redemption stated in the sheriff’s deeds of sale has already expired, we hereby grant them an extension of six months within which to redeem the properties in litigation, computed from the date of this decision becomes final.

"The judgment appealed from is reversed and one of the tenor of this decision will be entered, with costs against the appellees."cralaw virtua1aw library

On April 24, 1939, Valentina Dionglay filed in the guardianship proceedings of Ruben and Conrado Atienza, civil case No. 3242 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, a motion asking permission to sell the parcel of land covered by Certificate of Title No. 15495, alleging that said land was the only property of the said Ruben and Conrado Atienza, that the latter had an indebtedness to the respondent, Enrique Bautista, by virtue of the decision of the Court of Appeals in civil cases Nos. 6562 and 6708, and that said sale ought to be carried out on or before May 26, 1939. On May 2, 1939, the respondent Judge granted the authority prayed for. On May 16, 1939, Valentina Dionglay, in representation of Ruben and Conrado Atienza, executed a deed of sale in favor of the herein petitioner, Jeremias Mendoza, conveying the land described in Certificate of Title No. 15495 for and in consideration of the sum of P2,000. Upon motion of Valentina Dionglay, filed on May 17, 1939, the respondent judge, on May 20, 1939, approved the sale in favor of the petitioner, Jeremias Mendoza. On May 23, 1939, Valentina Dionglay causes the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, dated September 21, 1936, to be noted on the back of Certificate of Title No. 15495, notwithstanding the fact that, as hereinbefore already noted, said judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals on November 26, 1938. Upon registration of the deed of sale in the office of the register of deeds of Laguna on May 24, 1939, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 18485 was issued by the register of deeds in the name of Jeremias Mendoza. On June 14, 1939, the respondent, Enrique Bautista, filed a motion in civil cases Nos. 6562 and 6708, praying for the issuance of a writ of possession over the land in question on the ground that the period of six months granted by the Court of Appeals in its decision of November 26, 1938, for its redemption had already expired. On the same date, June 14, 1939, Valentina Dionglay filed an answer alleging that the property could no longer be delivered to the respondent, Enrique Bautista, because it had been sold to the petitioner, Jeremias Mendoza, on May 16, 1939, for the sum of P2,000, and that neither had Ruben and Conrado Atienza any money to pay to the respondent, Enrique Bautista, because the sum of P1,900 which they would pay to said respondent was stolen on May 26, 1939. On June 29, 1939, the respondent Judge granted the motion for the writ of possession and ordered the sheriff to deliver the land in question to the respondent, Enrique Bautista. On the same date, June 29, 1939, the respondent Judge issued an order requiring Valentina Dionglay to appear before him and show cause why she should not be punished for contempt for having stated in her petition of April 24, 1939, that the minors Ruben and Conrado Atienza had a debt to the respondent, Enrique Bautista, by virtue of the decision of the Court of Appeals when in fact they had none but only the right to redeem the land from the respondent, Enrique Bautista. On August 24, 1939, the respondent Judge issued two orders, one (in civil cases No. 3242) setting aside and revoking the order approving the sale in favor of the petitioner, Jeremias Mendoza, and the other (in civil cases Nos. 6562 and 6708) directing the sheriff to deliver the possession of the land in question to the respondent, Enrique Bautista. On September 28, 1939, the present petition was filed, praying that the orders of the respondent Judge, dated June 29, 1939 and August 24. 1939, be set aside for having been issued in excess of his jurisdiction, and that, pending these proceedings, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued restraining the respondents, Judge Alejo Labrador, Dominador Chipeco, provincial sheriff of Laguna, and Enrique Bautista, from carving into effect the aforesaid orders. On September 30, 1939, after the filing of a bond of P200 by the herein petitioner, Jeremias Mendoza, this court issued said preliminary injunction.

It should be observed that the levy of execution and the certificate of sale executed by the sheriff in 1934 in favor of Enrique Bautista were noted on the back of Certificate of Title No. 15495. When, therefore, on April 24, 1939, Valentina Dionglay filed in the guardianship proceedings of Ruben and Conrado Atienza, civil case No. 3242 of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, a motion seeking authority to sell the same property covered by the same certificate of title, the guardian could not plead ignorance of the interest of Bautista in the property, and when Mendoza acquired the sale, he was also charged with that knowledge. The finding of the court below that the authority given to the guardian to make the sale in favor of Mendoza was obtained through misrepresentation of the said guardian, cannot be disturbed. The fact that the alleged purchase price obtained from Mendoza was never delivered to Bautista contrary to the representation of the guardian in her motion, together with the other fact that Dionglay and the minors appear to have continued to occupy the land sold to Mendoza, are suspicious circumstances. Furthermore, it does not appear that the question of the alleged lack of jurisdiction was brought to the attention of the respondent Judge by means of a motion for reconsideration. (Herrera v. Barretto and Joaquin, 25 Phil., 245; Uy Chu v. Imperial and Uy Du, 44 Phil., 27; Amante v. Sison and Manzanero, 60 Phil., 949; Vicencio v. Sison, 34 Off. Gaz., 1442; Bongon Vda. de Manzanero v. Court of First Instance of Batangas Et. Al., 34 Off. Gaz., 1579.) As Mendoza is not an innocent purchaser, and considering the fact that the decision of the Court of Appeals in favor of Bautista is final, and attempt to defeat it should not be permitted, and considering the equities of the case, the petition for certiorari is hereby dismissed, and the preliminary injunction issued by this court consequently lifted, with costs against the petitioner. So ordered.

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




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





January-1940 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 40257 January 11, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. EMILIO LOPEZ DE LEON, ET AL.

    069 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. 46813 January 11, 1940 - FEDERICO OLIVEROS v. PEDRO PORCIONGCOLA, ET AL.

    069 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. 46836 January 11, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAMBERTO G. YCO

    069 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 46997 January 11, 1940 - WISE & COMPANY v. MAN SUN LUNG

    069 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 43723 January 15, 1940 - ENRIQUE C. LOPEZ v. ERNESTO J. SEVA, ET AL.

    069 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 46384 January 15, 1940 - EL COLECTOR DE RENTAS INTERNAS v. JOSE VILLAFLOR

    069 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 46503 January 15, 1940 - FAUSTO DE LOS SANTOS v. EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS

    069 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 46517 January 15, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. VITALIANO CADERAO, ET AL.

    069 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 46603 January 15, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILlPINAS v. MOROS MACARAMPAT, ET AL.

    069 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 46607 January 16, 1940 - BONIFACIO CARLOS v. CATALINO DE LOS REYES

    069 Phil 335

  • G.R. No. 46827 January 15, 1940 - FELISBERTO GONZALES v. CHARLES H. MILLER

    069 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 46829 January 15, 1940 - GO HAP, ET AL. v. MAMERTO ROXAS, ET AL.

    069 Phil 343

  • G.R. No. 46896 January 15, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. PABLO M. SAN JUAN

    069 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 46961 January 15, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. ANASTACIA LACENA

    069 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 46322 January 20, 1940 - ANSELMO RACELIS, ET AL. v. CRISPULO DEALO, ET AL.

    069 Phil 351

  • G.R. No. 46343 January 20, 1940 - JOSE AVILA v. CORAZON CH. VELOSO, ET AL.

    069 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. 46588 January 20, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SUBANO ALISUB

    069 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. 46826 January 20, 1940 - LY SIAM v. JOSE DELGADO

    069 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 46835 January 20, 1940 - PASUMIL WORKERS UNION v. TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    069 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 46897 January 20, 1940 - GO KIM v. MAMERTO PAGLINAWAN

    069 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 46898 January 20, 1940 - PEDRO ADAPON v. FELISA MARALIT

    069 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 46922 January 20, 1940 - SALVADOR ARANETA v. GERVASIO DIAZ

    069 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. 46945 January 20, 1940 - CALIXTO ORONCE v. ANSELMA LAPUZ

    069 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 46947 January 20, 1940 - JEREMIAS MENDOZA v. ALEJO LABRADOR, ET AL.

    069 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 46984 January 20, 1940 - FRANCISCA MERCADO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO MACAPAYAG, ET AL.

    069 Phil 403

  • Adm. Case No. 745 January 22, 1940 - IRINEA DE LOS SANTOS v. CELESTINO SAGALONGOS

    069 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 46141 January 22, 1940 - PARSONS HARDWARE CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    069 Phil 411

  • G.R. Nos. 46255, 46256, 46259 & 46277 January 23, 1940 - PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY v. A. L. YATCO

    069 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. 46472 January 23, 1940 - TAN TIONG TECK v. LA COMISION DE VALORES, ET AL.

    069 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 46529 January 23, 1940 - THE ASIATIC PETROLEUM (P. I.) , LTD. v. CO QUICO

    069 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 46764 January 23, 1940 - JOSE S. TIAOQUI, ET AL. v. FERNANDO JUGO, ET AL.

    069 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 46344 January 29, 1940 - JUANA B. VIUDA DE GOLINGCO, ET AL. v. AMBROSIO A. CALLEJA, ET AL.

    069 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 46373 January 29, 1940 - CARLOS PALANCA v. LA MANCOMUNIDAD DE FILIPINAS

    069 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. 46429 January 29, 1940 - ANASTACIO R. JESUITAS v. ISIDRO REYES

    069 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. 46549 January 29, 1940 - LIM BUN UAN v. ARSENIO P. DIZON, ET AL.

    069 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. 46590 January 29, 1940 - TEODORA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. ROMAN A. CRUZ

    069 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. 46621 January 29, 1940 - GUILLERMO MANLAPIT v. V. FRAGANTE

    069 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. 46713 Enero29, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. DIONISIO T. FERNANDEZ

    069 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. 46865 January 29, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. LEON R. PAMATI-AN

    069 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. 46928 January 29, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE LAS ISLAS FILIPINAS v. BASILIO J. EVANGELISTA

    069 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. 46976 January 29, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAURICIO G. HONRADEZ

    069 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. 46123 January 30, 1940 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SIXTO ESPINO

    069 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 46559 January 30, 1940 - J. A. WOLFSON v. BIBIANO L. MEER

    069 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46564 January 30, 1940 - EULOGIO TRIA, ET AL. v. ROSARIO VILLAREAL, ET AL.

    069 Phil 478

  • G.R. No. 46853 January 30, 1940 - MANILA TRADING & SUPPLY CO. v. FRANCISCO ZULUETA, ET AL.

    069 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 45551 January 31, 1940 - IN RE: MARCELINO LONTOK v. PRIMITIVO B. AC-AC

    069 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 46286 January 31, 1940 - GERMAN LIMJAP v. MARIA ESCOLAR VDA. DE LIMJAP, ET AL.

    069 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 46979 January 31, 1940 - URSULA ESGUERRA v. LEONORA DE LEON, ET AL.

    069 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 47005 January 31, 1940 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAZARO MAÑAGO

    069 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 47008 January 31, 1940 - EL DIRECTOR DE TERRENOS v. ARTURO REYES, ET AL.

    069 Phil 497