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-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11219 May 7, 1958 - PACITA SALABARIA VDA. DE SUATARON v. HAWAIIAN-PHILIPPINE COMPANY

    103 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-11580 May 9, 1958 - MARCELINO GABRIEL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    103 Phil 651

  • G.R. No. L-11231 May 12, 1958 - ROSARIO CARBONNEL v. JOSE PONCIO

    103 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. L-9531 May 14, 1958 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. GUILLERMO C. REYES

    103 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. L-11578 May 14, 1958 - GERONIMO AVECILLA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO

    103 Phil 666

  • G.R. No. L-11629 May 14, 1958 - CELEDONIO E. ESCUDERO v. ANTONIO G. LUCERO

    103 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-10559 May 16, 1958 - IN RE: YU NEAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 677

  • G.R. No. L-10657 May 16, 1958 - NUMERIANO L. VALERIANO, ET AL. v. CONCEPCION KERR, ET AL.

    103 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-11285 May 16, 1958 - VICENTE SAPTO v. APOLONIA FABIANA

    103 Phil 683

  • G.R. No. L-11924 May 16, 1958 - ISIDORO CEBRERO v. JOSE TALAMAN

    103 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. L-8776 May 19, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO CRUZ

    103 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-11539 May 19, 1958 - ARING BAGOBA v. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ

    103 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-11305 May 21, 1958 - DOMINADOR P. CANLAS, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-12375 May 21, 1958 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO.

    103 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-8317 May 23, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUAN ABAD, ET AL.

    103 Phil 725

  • G.R. No. L-10286 May 23, 1958 - LUIS E. ARRIOLA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-10704 May 23, 1958 - SIMEON TAN LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. L-11036 May 23, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO TOLENTINO

    103 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-11060 May 23, 1958 - A. U. VALENCIA & Co. v. HERMINIA C. LAYUG, ET AL.

    103 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. L-11152 May 23, 1958 - BENITO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-11442 May 23, 1958 - MANUELA T. VDA. DE SALVATIERRA v. LORENZO C. GARLITOS

    103 Phil 757

  • G.R. No. L-11504 May 23, 1958 - ELISEO SAULOG v. N. BAENS DEL ROSARIO

    103 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-7451 May 26, 1958 - HACIENDA LUISITA v. BOARD OF TAX APPEALS

    103 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-10610 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO SILVELA

    103 Phil 773

  • G.R. No. L-11361 May 26, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX SEMAÑADA

    103 Phil 790

  • G.R. No. L-8190 May 28, 1958 - GONZALO GARCIA v. CONSOLACION MANZANO

    103 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-9328 May 28, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO PAUNIL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-10322 May 28, 1958 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JACINTA ALVAREZ

    103 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. L-10574 May 28, 1958 - PANAY ELECTRIC CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

    103 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. L-10931 May 28, 1958 - FLORENClA R. SORIANO v. ONG HOO

    103 Phil 829

  • G.R. No. L-10972 May 28, 1958 - IN RE: PERFECTO GOTAUCO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 834

  • G.R. No. L-10989 May 28, 1958 - PONCIANO GACHO v. SERGIO OSMEÑA

    103 Phil 837

  • G.R. No. L-11112 May 28, 1958 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. LUZON SURETY COMPANY

    103 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. L-11271 May 28, 1958 - PAZ TY SIN TEI v. JOSE LEE DY PIAO

    103 Phil 858

  • G.R. No. L-11311 May 28, 1958 - MARTA C. ORTEGA v. DANIEL LEONARDO

    103 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-11412 May 28, 1958 - MAURICIA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

    103 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-11427 May 28, 1958 - DIMAS REYES v. FIDEL D. DONES

    103 Phil 884

  • G.R. No. L-11491 May 28, 1958 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. BIENVENIDA JOCSON LAGNITON

    103 Phil 889

  • G.R. No. L-11538 May 28, 1958 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. JEA COMMERCIAL, ET AL.

    103 Phil 894

  • G.R. No. L-11640 May 28, 1958 - CLAUDIO DEGOLLACION v. LI CHUI

    103 Phil 904

  • G.R. No. L-11744 May 28, 1958 - PILAR GIL VDA. DE MURCIANO v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    103 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-12196 May 28, 1958 - ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF BATAAN v. AMBROSIO T. DOLLETE

    103 Phil 914

  • G.R. Nos. L-12214-17 May 28, 1958 - MALIGAYA SHIP WATCHMEN AGENCY v. ASSOCIATED WATCHMEN AND SECURITY UNION (PTWO)

    103 Phil 920

  • G.R. No. L-12222 May 28, 1958 - UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    103 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-12289 May 28, 1958 - LIM SIOK HUEY v. ALFREDO LAPIZ

    103 Phil 930

  • G.R. No. L-12348 May 28, 1958 - MARIANO CORDOVA v. GREGORIO NARVASA

    103 Phil 935

  • G.R. No. L-13069 May 28, 1958 - JOVENCIO A. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    103 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-12287 May 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FORTUNATO ORTIZ, ET AL.

    103 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-7955 May 30, 1958 - JOAQUIN LOPEZ v. ENRIQUE P. OCHOA

    103 Phil 950

  • G.R. No. L-8439 May 30, 1958 - CO CHO CHIT v. HANSON, ORTH & STEVENSON, INC., ET AL.

    103 Phil 956

  • G.R. No. L-10642 May 30, 1958 - IN RE: ALFREDO ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    103 Phil 964

  • G.R. Nos. L-10837-38 May 30, 1958 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. ISABEL IYA

    103 Phil 972

  • G.R. No. L-10952 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO V. LINGAD

    103 Phil 980

  • G.R. No. L-11073 May 30, 1958 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES E. VARELA

    103 Phil 990

  • G.R. No. L-11374 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSCORO PINUILA

    103 Phil 992

  • G.R. No. L-11444 May 30, 1958 - VICENTE ROULLO v. MARGARITO LUMAYNO

    103 Phil 1004

  • G.R. No. L-11498 May 30, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN J. RODRIGUEZ

    103 Phil 1008

  • G.R. Nos. L-11531-33 May 30, 1958 - MARIA CONCEPCION v. PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CP. INC.

    103 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-12053 May 30, 1958 - ROBERTA C. DIAZ v. JESUS Y. PEREZ

    103 Phil 1023

  • G.R. No. L-12081 May 30, 1958 - LORENZO LERMA v. VICTORIANO L. REYES, ET AL.

    103 Phil 1027

  • G.R. No. L-12530 May 30, 1958 - CONSOLIDATED LABOR ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMOGENES CALUAG

    103 Phil 1032

  • G.R. No. L-12567 May 30, 1958 - TAN GIN SAN v. ROSALIA A. TAN CARPIZO

    103 Phil 1042

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-11578   May 14, 1958 - GERONIMO AVECILLA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO<br /><br />103 Phil 666

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-11578. May 14, 1958.]

    GERONIMO AVECILLA, as administrator of the estate of deceased Placido Alfonso, Petitioner, v. HON. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL., Respondents.

    Calalang, Cruz & Carag for Petitioner.

    Amanda V. Viray for respondent Susana Realty, Inc.


    SYLLABUS


    1. LAND REGISTRATION; REGISTRATION PROCURED BY FRAUD; REMEDY. — In all cases of registration procured by fraud, the remedy of the persons prejudiced thereby is to bring an action for damages against the persons responsible therefor, within four years after discovery of the deception, without prejudice to the rights of an innocent purchaser for value.

    2. ID.; REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENT; EFFECT OF; ACTION TO ANNUL; PERIOD OF PRESCRIPTION FROM WHERE COUNTED. — It is a well-settled rule in land registration that registration of a document in the registry office operates, not only to the parties to the same but also against the whole world. And it has been held that the period of prescription in relation to an action to annul a sale of land bought by third persons should be counted from the date of registration of the same. (De Guinoo v. Court of Appeals, 97 Phil., 235).

    3. ID.; CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST; ACTION TO VINDICATE PROPERTY, AGAINST WHOM DIRECTED; REMEDY WHERE RIGHTS OF INNOCENT PURCHASER FOR VALUE HAD INTERVENED. — Where a person, through fraudulent representation, secures a transfer certificate of title in his name, a constructive trust in favor of the registered owner is created which grants to said owner the right to vindicate the property. However, the right of action in this constructive trust should be exercised against the trustee who caused the fraud, and not against an innocent purchaser for value. Where, as in the present case, the property has already been conveyed to an innocent third party for value, the remedy of the persons prejudiced thereby is to bring an action for damages against those who caused the fraud or were instrumental in depriving them of the property. Their action cannot reach an innocent purchaser for value who is protected by law. (Raymundo, et al v. Afable, et al, 96 Phil, 655; 51 off. Gaz, [3], 1329.)

    4. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS; LIMITATION ON RULE ALLOWING AMENDMENT. — The granting of leave to file amended pleadings is a matter peculiarly within the sound discretion of the trial court. But the rule allowing amendments to pleadings is subject to the general but not inflexible limitation that the cause of action or defense shall not be substantially changed, or the theory of the case altered, to the prejudice of the other party. (Torres Vda. de Neir v. Tomacruz, 49 PhiL, 913.)


    D E C I S I O N


    BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


    On June 11, 1956, Victorino Alfonso, Ciriaca Alfonso and Paciencia Alfonso filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Agueda Santos and Santiago Cruz for annulment of certain extrajudicial settlement and deed of sale covering a parcel of land allegedly owned by Placido Alfonso, the deceased husband of Agueda Santos. The complaint was later amended so as to include as party defendant Susana Realty, Inc. to which the property was subsequently sold.

    On August 1, 1956, Agueda Santos and Santiago Cruz filed their respective answers but Susana Realty, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss alleging (1) lack of cause of action; (2) the cause of action, if any, had prescribed; and (3) plaintiffs do not have legal capacity to sue. On September 1, 1956, by leave of court, plaintiffs were substituted by Gerónimo Avecilla who was appointed judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased Placido Alfonso on June 8, 1956. On September 14, 1956, the court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint in so far as Susana Realty, Inc. is concerned. It found that plaintiff has no cause of action against the company, and that if he has any, the action has already prescribed. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration having been denied, he interposed the present petition for certiorari.

    It is alleged in the amended complaint that the spouses Placido Alfonso and Agueda Santos owned a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 21913 which was conjugal in nature; that Placido died in 1947 without any issue; that Agueda, alleging fraudulently that she was the sole heir of her deceased husband, executed an extrajudicial deed of settlement and secured Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3585 in her name; that thereafter she sold the land to Santiago Cruz who fraudulently secured Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3586; that Santiago in turn conveyed the property to Susana Realty, Inc. which secured Transfer Certificate of Title No. 31543 in its name; that plaintiffs discovered the fraudulent sale between Agueda and Santiago only in January, 1956, and that between Santiago and Susana Realty, Inc. in June, 1956. Plaintiffs prayed for the annulment of the extrajudicial settlement and the deeds of sale in favor of Santiago Cruz and Susana Realty, Inc. and for the reconveyance of the property to them.

    The first ground on which the lower court dismissed the complaint is that it does not allege a cause of action against Susana Realty, Inc. for the reason that while it alleges that Agueda Santos and Santiago Cruz acted fraudulently in effecting the sale of the land by the former to the latter, there is, however, nothing alleged therein that in the transfer of the land by Cruz to Susana Realty, Inc., the latter acted with knowledge of the fraud or of the defect vitiating the title of Santiago Cruz. It is further inferred from the complaint that the land is covered by a Torrens title on the back of which no encumbrance appears. It is for this reason that the trial court found Susana Realty, Inc. to have acted in good faith in purchasing the land and held that the action cannot prosper against it under Section 55 of Act 496 which provides: "That in all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud, without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title."cralaw virtua1aw library

    We have examined the pertinent allegations contained in the amended complaint and have found the above findings of the trial court correct. Indeed, there is nothing alleged therein which may implicate Susana Realty, Inc. in the commission of the alleged fraud in the transfer made by Agueda Santos of the land to Santiago Cruz although the allegation therein is clear that both Santos and Cruz have acted fraudulently. Being an innocent purchaser for value of the land, its right is protected by law and the remedy of the persons prejudiced is to bring an action for damages against the persons responsible therefor.

    "In fact, in view of the issuance of certificates of title, another line of approach conclusive against plaintiffs’ side suggests itself; There being no allegation of bad faith against Santos, his purchase of the duly registered title of Afable may not be revoked even if Afable, as alleged in the complaint, obtained it thru fraud. Consequently plaintiffs’ action for annulment of the deed of sale will necessarily fail. Plaintiffs’ remedy, if any, is an action for damages against Afable by reason of fraud and that remedy may only be demanded judicially within four years after discovery of the deception. (Sec. 43 Act No. 190.)" Raymundo, Et. Al. v. Afable, Et Al., 96 Phil., 655.)

    The second ground on which the order dismissing the complaint is predicated is that, even if plaintiff has a cause of action against defendant Susana Realty, Inc., the same has already prescribed. The court said: "It is very clear that said prescriptive period commences to run from the discovery of the fraud, which, in the instant case, is from April 11, 1947, the date of registration of the alleged fraudulent document, the affidavit of extrajudicial settlement by the defendant Agueda Santos. It is a well-settled rule in land registration that registration of a document in the registry office operates, not only to the parties to the same, but also against the whole world. It is obvious that the four-year period has long expired from aforesaid date of registration.

    "Again, we find correct the above finding of the trial court. Under Section 51 of Act 496, every conveyance affecting registered lands if recorded, filed or entered in the office of the register of deeds, shall "be notice to all persons from the time of such registration, filing, or entering." And it has been held that the period of prescription in relation to an action to annul a sale of land bought by third persons should be counted from the date of registration of the same, which is notice to the whole world (De Guinoo v. The Court of Appeals, 97 Phil., 235).

    But petitioner maintains that this cause of action has not yet prescribed because when Agueda Santos, through fraudulent misrepresentation, secured a certificate of title in her name, a constructive trust in favor of the defrauded heirs of her late husband was created which grants to said heirs the right to vindicate the property regardless of the lapse of time. But the right of action in this constructive trust should be exercised against the trustee, who caused the fraud, and not against an innocent purchaser for value, as the Susana Realty, Inc. This right may also be exercised against Santiago Cruz who also obtained title to the land with knowledge of the fraud, but not with regard to Susana Realty, Inc. which, as already stated, has bought the property in good faith. The remedy in this case of the defrauded heirs is to bring an action for damages against those who caused the fraud or were instrumental in depriving them of the property. Their action cannot reach an innocent purchaser for value who is protected by law (Raymundo, Et. Al. v. Afable, Et Al., supra).

    After plaintiffs have filed their amended complaint in the lower court and defendant Susana Realty, Inc. filed its motion to dismiss alleging that the same alleges no cause of action against it because it appears therein that it has acted without knowledge of the fraud with which the title of its predecessor-in-interest was vitiated, counsel for plaintiffs moved for leave to file their amended complaint in order that he may supply the deficiency in so far as said defendant is concerned. Of course, defendant Susana Realty, Inc. opposed the move and the court denied the motion. Counsel now contends that the lower court erred in denying the motion.

    While under the rules a party may, upon motion, ask the court for leave to alter or amend any pleading, action thereon is addressed to the discretion of the court. The court may grant leave to amend upon such terms as may be just or where in its opinion the circumstances so warrant (section 2, Rule 17). The rule is not mandatory. The rule is further subject to the limitation that, if the amendment is allowed, the cause of action should not be substantially changed, or the theory of the case altered to the prejudice of the other party. Thus, it was held: "The granting of leave to file amended pleadings is a matter peculiarly within the sound discretion of the trial court. This discretion will not be disturbed on appeal, except in case of an evident abuse thereof. But the rule allowing amendments to pleadings is subject to the general but not inflexible limitation that the cause of action or defense shall not be substantially changed, or that the theory of the case shall not be altered" (Torres Vda. de Neir v. Tomacruz, 49 Phil., 913). In the circumstances, we find nothing to show that the lower court has abused its discretion on this matter.

    We find one procedural error committed by petitioner in this case. Petitioner seeks redress from an order of the trial court dismissing his complaint against the Susana Realty, Inc. but in doing so he filed a petition for certiorari. This is erroneous for his remedy is appeal, the order in question being final in character. This alone is enough ground for the dismissal of the present petition for certiorari.

    Petition is dismissed, with costs against petitioner.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-11578   May 14, 1958 - GERONIMO AVECILLA v. HON. NICASIO YATCO<br /><br />103 Phil 666


    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