Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1956 > January 1956 Decisions > [G.R. No. L-6251. January 31, 1956.] LEONORA MANAOIS, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. JOSE ZAMORA, ET AL., Respondents.:




SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-6251.  January 31, 1956.]

LEONORA MANAOIS, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. JOSE ZAMORA, ET AL., Respondents.

 

D E C I S I O N

PARAS, C.J.:

As this is an appeal by certiorari, we are hereby adopting the following narration of facts contained in the decision of the Court of Appeals:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Plaintiffs Leonora Manaois, Gregorio Manaois, Juliana Manaois and Inocencia Manaois and Defendant Florencio Manaois are brothers and sisters and, together with a niece, one Francisca de Guzman, who is not a party to this action, were formerly owners pro-indiviso and in common of the parcel of land described in the complaint. This parcel of land, which is situated in the barrio of Lomboy, municipality of Binmaley, Province of Pangasinan, and contains an area of 18,975 square meters, more or less, is rural, and it was one of three lots which the above named persons inherited from Cenon Manaois, father of the first five and grandfather of the last.

“On January 10, 1943, the properties left by Cenon Manaois were partitioned among his heirs. In that partition, which was recorded in a public deed (Exhibit “I”), the lot described in the complaint was adjudicated as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary one-fourth, towards its southeastern side to Gregorio Manaois; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryone-fourth, towards its southwestern side, to Florencio Manaois; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryone-eighth, towards its northern side, to Francisca de Guzman; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryone-eighth, towards its northeastern side, to Leonora Manaois, and one-eighth, towards its northwestern side, to Inocencia Manaois. After the execution of this deed, the parties thereto entered into the possession of the portions of the lot respectively adjudicated to them.

“On April 2, 1943, Florencio Manaois, in consideration of the sum of P500, paid to him by Defendant Jose Zamora, sold and conveyed to the latter his one-fourth share in the above-mentioned lot, and executed for the purpose of a public deed of conveyance (Exhibit “2”). On the same date, after the execution of this deed of sale, Jose Zamora constituted himself in the land conveyed to him and took possession thereof in the presence and with the acquiescence of Gregorio Manaois, and the latter’s brothers-in-law, Miguel Fabia and Crescencio Rosario, husbands of Leonora Manaois and Inocencia Manaois, respectively, whom he found in the place.

“On April 30, 1943, Zamora went to the law firm De la Peña, Cruz, Arboleda and Peña, in Lingayen, Pangasinan, to get the certificate of title covering the property acquired by him which, he was told, was in the possession of said law firm. Attorney Arboleda of the firm told Zamora that if he wanted to have the certificate of title he had to bring at least one of the children of the deceased Cenon Manaois and pay the amount of P45 which said deceased owed their firm. Thus advised, Zamora went back to Binmaley and in succession asked Inocencia, Juliana and Leonora Manaois to accompany him to the office of Attorney Arboleda, but these sisters refused and referred him to their brother Gregorio Manaois. The latter agreed, and on May 1, 1943, he accompanied Zamora to the office of Attorney Arboleda, who upon being paid the sum of P45, immediately executed the necessary deed of release and told Zamora and Gregorio Manaois to record the same in the office of the register of deeds, from which they could get the certificate of title of the property of Cenon Manaois. Zamora and Gregorio Manaois presented this deed of release in the office of the register of deeds on May 3, 1943, and, after paying the necessary fees, they were given the owner’s duplicate of two certificates of title. Zamora retained the title which covered his property (owner’s duplicate of certificate of title No. 52914) and gave the other to Gregorio Manaois.

“Once in the possession of the duplicate of certificate of title No. 52914, Zamora presented the deed of conveyance of the property in the office of the register of deeds. He was, however, advised that said deed cannot be recorded unless a copy of the deed of partition of the lot among the heirs of Cenon Manaois be also presented for record. Due to the difficulties encountered by Zamora to secure a copy of the deed of partition, he did not insist on the registration of the deed of conveyance above referred to.

“However, on July 22, 1946, Zamora went back to the office of the register of deeds for Pangasinan and once more presented the deed of conveyance above-referred to for record, advising said office why he could not file the deed of partition. The register of deeds, upon being advised of the situation, accepted the deed and entered it in the entry book of his office. On the same date, July 22, 1946, the Plaintiffs commenced this action.”

The action instituted by the Plaintiffs (herein Petitioners) was for legal redemption under Articles 1523 and 1524 of the old Civil Code. The Petitioners lost both in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and in the Court of Appeals, and the case is now before us on review by certiorari.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the deed conveying the land in question to Respondent Jose Zamora was registered on July 22, 1946, when the present action was commenced. It also found that the evidence “clearly shows that the Plaintiffs (herein Petitioners) had knowledge of the sale in question since its execution on April 2, 1943.”

The Petitioners admit that the law involved is Article 1524 of the old Civil Code providing that “the right of legal redemption can be exercised only within nine days, counted from the inscription in the registry, and in the absence thereof from the time the redemptioner shall have had knowledge of the sale,” and that the only question to be decided is whether the nine-day period should start from July 22,1946 (date of registration), or from April 2, 1943 (when Petitioners had actual knowledge). The Court of Appeals sustained the view that the starting point is the latter date.

We agree. The Supreme Court of Spain, in its decisions of December 14, 1905 and June 30, 1910, had already held that the date of registration was intended to be applied to all cases where the date of actual knowledge is unknown, the idea being that knowledge of the sale may be presumed from its mere registration; chan roblesvirtualawlibraryand not to cases where the date of prior knowledge is determined, otherwise a legal presumption would be given more importance than a real fact. The following is the commentary of Manresa. “El Codigo, dice la sentencia de 14 de Diciembre de 1905, no quiere establecer para todos los casos de titulos sujetos a inscripcion, un plazo uniforme de nueve dias a contar desde ella para ejercitar el retracto, sino solo para el caso de no poder acreditarse si el retrayente tuvo o no conocimiento anterior de la venta, caso en el que establece una presuncion juris et de jure, basada en la publicidad de registro. Si el retrayente conocia la venta, el plazo ha de contarse desde ese conocimiento:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary lo mismo viene a afirmar, en el fondo, la sentencia de 30 de Junio de 1910. (10 Manresa, 340, 4th ed.)”

We can think of no valid justification for departing from the rule laid down by the Supreme Court of Spain. It is desirable that purchasers of real property should not be left guessing or in suspense as to the status of their title, so as to allow or enable them to decide without delay on what to do with said property. It is true that, as intimated by counsel for the Petitioners, the matter of registering a sale is within the power of the purchaser who should be blamed for any delayed registration. But there may be instances where, as in the case at bar, early registration cannot be effected due to the legitimate causes beyond the control of the purchaser. Upon the other hand, a redemptioner who has actual knowledge is afforded the same, if not more, opportunity to exercise his right, as a redemptioner charged with knowledge of the sale merely in virtue of a registration.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against the Petitioners.

Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






January-1956 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. L-7900. January 12, 1956.] CIRIACO TIGLAO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-10030. January 18, 1956.] NAMARCO, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, of the Court of First Instance of Manila and KHO KUN COMMERCIAL, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8324. January 19, 1956.] JOSE BARADI and SABINA BONITA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. MANUEL IGNACIO, GERONIMA RESMAL, MARCELINO IGNACIO and COSME IGNACIO, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7900. January 12, 1956.] CIRIACO TIGLAO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-10030. January 18, 1956.] NAMARCO, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE JUDGE HIGINIO B. MACADAEG, of the Court of First Instance of Manila and KHO KUN COMMERCIAL, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8324. January 19, 1956.] JOSE BARADI and SABINA BONITA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. MANUEL IGNACIO, GERONIMA RESMAL, MARCELINO IGNACIO and COSME IGNACIO, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-9688. January 19, 1956.] RAFAEL J. CASTRO, Petitioner, vs. VALERIANO M. GATUSLAO, Acting Provincial Governor of Negros Occidental, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7086. January 20, 1956.] NGO SENG, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. RAFAEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-7280. January 20, 1956.] TAN LIAO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-7974. January 20, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BOANERJES M. VENTURANZA, ET AL., Defendants. JOSE Y. TORRES, Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7260. January 21, 1956.] PHILIPPINE EXECUTIVE COMMISSION (now REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES), Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. PROCESO ESTACIO, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-9860. January 21, 1956.] BENITO MONTINOLA, Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-6536. January 25, 1956.] EMILIANO N. RAMIREZ, Petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and OLGA MULLER NEASE, assisted by her husband DARIUS NEASE, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8550. January 25, 1956.] In the matter of the petition of TIU PENG HONG to be admitted as citizen of the Philippines. TIU PENG HONG, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-9174. January 25, 1956.] JOAQUIN LEDESMA, in his capacity as Mayor of Cadiz, Negros Occidental, and the MUNICIPALITY OF CADIZ, Negros Occidental, Petitioners, vs. HONORABLE JOSE TEODORO, SR., Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, JOSE AZCONA, Provincial Sheriff Ex-Officio of Negros Occidental, and JOSE AGAPUYAN, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-6587. January 27, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GAUDENCIO DE JOYA Y CAPACIA, ET AL., Defendants, RICARDO HORNALES Y YAMBAO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-7562. January 30, 1956.] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VlCTORIANO FRANCISCO Y MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-9322-23. January 30, 1956.] TEODORO TANDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. NARCISO N. ALDAYA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. L-5405. January 31, 1956.] ERNESTO M. GUEVARA, Petitioner, vs. ROSARIO GUEVARA and PEDRO C. QUINTO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-6251. January 31, 1956.] LEONORA MANAOIS, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. JOSE ZAMORA, ET AL., Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-6423. January 31, 1956.] AYALA Y COMPA�IA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSEPH ARCACHE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6662. January 31, 1956.] PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DALMACIO CATIPON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-6741. January 31, 1956.] INTERPROVINCIAL AUTOBUS CO., INC., Petitioner, vs. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-6843. January 31, 1956.] THE NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL CITY BANK EMPLOYEES UNION, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-6903. January 31, 1956.] LIBRADA PROCESO DESPO, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. HONORABLE ANDRES STA. MARIA, ET AL., Respondents-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7377. January 31, 1956.] GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. PAZ TUASON DE PATERNO and JOSE VIDAL, Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-7472-7477. January 31, 1956.] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SERGIO VILLANUEVA, ET AL., accused. IGMIDIO CAMAGONG, MELECIO PAKINGAN, BIENVENIDO MOJICA, RICARDO GONZALES, MARCIANO TIMBANG, and SERAFIN TIMBANG, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. L-7496. January 31, 1956.] CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC., Petitioner, vs. KATIPUNAN LABOR UNION, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. L-7663. January 31, 1956.] ENRIQUE ZOBEL, Petitioner, vs. ELIGIO A. ABREU, as Justice of the Peace of Calatagan, Batangas and GUILLERMO MERCADO, Respondents.

  • [G.R. No. L-8010. January 31, 1956.] LOPEZ INC., represented by DAVID DE LEON in his capacity as in-charge, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. PHILIPPINE & EASTERN TRADING CO., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. L-8221. January 31, 1956.] EDUARDO MANLAPAT, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. SIMEON SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. Nos. L-9320 & L-9321. January 31, 1956.] ALIPIO N. CASILAN and RITA GALAGNARA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. RAYMOND TOMASSI, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. L-9669. January 31, 1956.] NICANOR G. SALAYSAY, Acting Municipal Mayor of San Juan del Monte, Rizal, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE FRED RUIZ CASTRO, Executive Secretary, Office of the President of the Philippines, HONORABLE WENCESLAO PASCUAL, Provincial Governor of Rizal, and DOCTOR BRAULIO STO. DOMINGO, Respondents.