Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1959 > January 1959 Decisions > G.R. No. L-11764 January 31, 1959 - ENRIQUE CUISON, ET AL. v. ISIDRO G. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

105 Phil 135:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-11764. January 31, 1959.]

ENRIQUE CUISON, ET AL, plaintiffs and appellees, v. ISIDRO G. FERNANDEZ and ANTONIO BENGZON, Defendants-Appellants.

Primicias & Del Castillo for Appellees.

Callanta, De Guzman & Associates and David C. Fernandez for appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. HUSBAND AND WIFE; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP; SALE BY SURVIVING SPOUSE. — Conjugal partnership property could not be sold by the surviving spouse without the formalities established for the sale of the property of deceased persons, and such sale by the surviving spouse is void as to the share of the deceased spouse and the vendee becomes a trustee of the share of the deceased spouse for the benefit of her heirs, the cestui que trustent.

2. LIMITATION OF ACTION; PRESCRIPTION AND LACHES; PROPERTY HELD IN TRUST. — Prescription cannot be set up as a defense in an action that seeks to recover property held in trust for the benefit of another and neither could laches be set up as a defense, it being similar to prescription.


D E C I S I O N


PADILLA, J.:


The plaintiffs seek to recover from the defendant Isidro G. Fernandez possession and ownership of one half of two parcels of land situated at barrio Umanday, municipality of Bugallon, province of Pangasinan, containing an aggregate area of 42,060 square meters, described in transfer certificate of title No. 2476, issued in his name by the Registrar of Deeds in and for the province of Pangasinan. The defendant Antonio Bengzon is joined or impleaded as defendant in his capacity as Registrar of Deeds. In addition, they seek to collect the sum of P6,000 as damages and P600 yearly until possession thereof is returned to them, and costs of the suit, and pray for other just and equitable relief. After denial of the defendant Fernandez’s motion to dismiss, he filed an answer with counterclaim for damages in the sum of P11,000. The plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the defendant’s counterclaim was denied. The defendant Registrar of Deeds did not file an answer to the complaint.

On 3 July 1953 the parties submitted to the Court the following stipulation of facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

COME now the parties, by their undersigned attorneys, and to this Honorable Court respectfully submit the following agreed stipulation of facts, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. That, as evidenced by Original Certificate of Title No. 18699 of the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan issued by virtue of the decision and decree in Registration Case No. 211, G.L.R.O. Record No. 12816, the spouses Domingo Cuison and Vicenta Mejia are the registered owners of the two parcels of land described in paragraph 3 of the complaint as their conjugal partnership property. A copy of Original Certificate of Title No. 18699 and the decision in Registration Case No. 211 are hereto attached and made a part hereof as Exhibits "A" and "B", respectively.

2. That Vicenta Mejia, one of the above-named spoused died on April 15,1923 as evidenced by the death certificate hereto attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "C" ;

3. That on July 1, 1925, that is more than two years after the death of said Vicenta Mejia, the surviving spouse Domingo Cuison sold and conveyed for the sum of P2,100.00 the two parcels of land described in paragraph 3 of the complaint to the defendant Isidro G. Fernandez. A certified copy of the deed of sale executed by Domingo Cuison in favor of defendant Isidro G. Fernandez, is hereto attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "D" ;

4. That defendant Isidro Fernandez registered the deed of sales, Exhibit "D", executed in his favor by Domingo Cuison in the office of the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan on July 8, 1925, and by virtue of the registration of the said deed of sale (Exhibit "D"), the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan, the defendant Antonio Bengzon, issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2476 in the name of Isidro G. Fernandez over the two parcels of land described in paragraph 3 of the complaint. A certified copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2476 in the name of Isidro G. Fernandez is hereto attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "1" ;

5. That on May 9, 1922, the spouses Domingo Cuison and Vicenta Mejia sold the two parcels of land in question by way of pacto de retro in favor of one Marcos Viray Ferrer in the sum f P800.00 within the period of three years from said date. A copy of said pacto de retro sale is hereto attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "2" ;

6. That on July 2, 1925, as per agreement of Domingo Cuison and Marcos Viray Ferrer, the former redeemed and repurchased from the latter the two parcels of land described in paragraph 3 of the complaint which was (were) sold pacto de retro under Exhibit "2" ; A copy of the deed or repurchase is hereto attached and made a part hereof as Exhibit "3" ;

7. That defendant Isidro G. Fernandez has been in continuous adverse possession of the two parcels of land described in the complaint since the execution of the deed of sale (Exhibit "D") in 1925 up to the present writing;

8. That both parties hereby reserve the right to offer and present other evidence in support of their respective claims and in addition to the foregoing stipulation of facts;

WHEREFORE, both parties hereby respectfully pray that the foregoing stipulation of facts be admitted and that the parties be allowed to present further evidence in support of their respective claims. (Pp. 40-42, Rec. on App.)

On the day set for the trial of the case for the parties to present evidence in support of their respective claims and contentions, upon motion of the plaintiffs in open court, the Court declared the defendant Registrar of Deeds in default (p. 6, t.s.n.) .

After trial and upon the foregoing stipulation of facts, the Court rendered judgment, the dispositive part of which is:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs are hereby declared entitled to one-half pro indiviso of the parcels of land described in par. 3 of the complaint as heirs of Vicenta Mejia, in the proportion of one share each for plaintiffs Enrique Cuison, Cresencia Cuison, and Lope Cuison and the fourth share to both the plaintiffs Geminiano and Jose Cuison; the defendant Isidro G. Fernandez is hereby ordered to execute a deed, sufficient in law, conveying in favor of the plaintiffs one-half undivided portion of said parcels of land; and the Register of Deeds of this province is hereby directed, on the basis of said deed, to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2476 in the name of defendant Isidro G. Fernandez and to issue, in lieu thereof, upon payment of his fees, another Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of Isidro G. Fernandez and the plaintiffs, in the proportion of one-half pro indiviso for Isidro G. Fernandez, and the remaining one-half pro-indiviso in favor of the plaintiffs in four equal shares, one share each for Enrique Cuison, Cresencia Cuison, and Lope Cuison, and one share for both Geminiano and Jose Cuison.

The defendant Isidro G. Fernandez is further ordered to deliver to the plaintiffs by way of damages representing unrealized crop yield the amount of thirty-seven and one-half (37-1/2) cavanes of rice per year from the filing of the complaint in 1950 to the date this judgment shall become final such delivery to be either in kind or in the monetary equivalent thereof at the date of execution of this judgment.

The said defendant is further assessed the costs of this litigation. (Pp. 43, 57-58, Rec. on App.)

The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals. The latter certified the case to this Court for the reason that only questions of law are raised.

As the two parcels of land belonged to the conjugal partnership of the spouses Domingo Cuison and Vicenta Mejia (par. 1, stipulation of facts), the same could not be sold by the surviving spouse without the formalities established for the sale of the property of deceased person, 1 and such sale by the surviving spouse is void as to the share of deceased spouse. 2 The vendee becomes a trustee of the share of the deceased spouse for the benefit of her heirs, the cestui que trustent. 3 Prescription cannot be set up as a defense in an action that seeks to recover property held in trust for the benefit of another. 4 Neither could laches be set up as a defense in the case at bar, it being similar to prescription. 5

True, the parcels of land in litigation could have been lost to Marcos Viray Ferrer, the vendee a retro to whom they had been sold by the spouses Domingo Cuison and Vicenta Mejia, upon the expiration of the redemption or repurchase period, and it was only by the efforts of the surviving spouse, who secured from the appellant the money with which to redeem or repurchase the parcels of land from the vendee a retro., that the surviving spouse succeeded in repurchasing them. Nevertheless, the appellees were not and could not be deprived of their respective interests in the share of their late mother and grandmother in the conjugal property. Moreover, there is no finding that the appellees had consented to the sale of their respective interests and that they received any part of or share in the proceeds of the sale from their father and grandfather.

There is no good reason for reversing the finding that the appellant was a purchaser in good faith who had been in possession of the parcels of land for nearly twenty-five years, or from 1925 when he purchased them to 1950 when the complaint was filed in the case; and for that reason the trial court held him not liable during that period of time for the produce of one-half of the parcels of land that he had held in trust for heirs of the late Vicenta Mejia. However, the trial court ordered the appellant to deliver thirty-seven and one-half cavanes of palay yearly or its equivalent value in money from 1950, the year of the filing of the complaint, to the date of delivery to the appellees of their one-half share in the parcels of land. On the other hand, the appellees are bound to pay P400, the share of their late mother and grandmother in the loan of P800 secured from Marcos Viray Ferrer, for which the spouses sold the parcels of land in litigation with the right to repurchase, a right which Domingo Cuison, the surviving spouse, exercised by making the repurchase from Marcos Viray Ferrer with the money he had obtained from the appellant. The liability of the late Vicenta Mejia must be discharged by her heirs and successors-in-interest. For that reason the amount of damages awarded must be set off against the sum of P400 which is an obligation chargeable against the appellees. The amount of damages awarded must begin from the time the judgment rendered in this case, as modified by this Court, becomes final and executory and delivery or return of possession of one-half of the parcels of land in litigation to the appellees is delayed or not made immediately by the Appellant.

The judgment appealed from is modified in the manner above stated, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion and Endencia, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Act No. 3176.

2. Ocampo v. Potenciano, 89 Phil., 159; Talag v. Tangengco, G. R. No. L-4623, 24 October 1952; Ibarle v. Po, 92 Phil., 721; 49 Off. Gaz., 956; Corpuz v. Corpuz, 97 Phil., 655; 51 Off. Gaz., 5185; Corpuz v. Geronimo, 98 Phil., 623; 52 Off. Gaz., 2528.

3. Severino v. Severino, 44 Phil., 343; Sumira v. Vistan, 74 Phil., 138. See article 1456, new civil code.

4. Cristobal v. Gomez, 50 Phil., 810; Castro v. Castro, 57 Phil., 675; Manalang v. Garcia, 94 Phil., 776; 50 Off. Gaz., 1980; Sevilla v. Angeles, 97 Phil., 875; 51 Off. Gaz., 5590.

5. Go Chi Gun v. Go Cho, 96 Phil., 622.




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-1959 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-10701 January 16, 1959 - MARIA CANO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10910 January 16, 1959 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC. v. ANTONIO LEJANO

    105 Phil 6

  • G.R. Nos. L-11298, L-11586 & L-11603 January 19, 1959 - RICARDO GUTIERREZ v. BACHRACH MOTOR CO., INC.

    105 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-10802 January 22, 1959 - PROVINCE OF RIZAL v. BARTOLOME SAN DIEGO

    105 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 12448 January 22, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO SANTOS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 40

  • G.R. No. L-11575 January 24, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINDA PADILLA

    105 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. L-12056 January 24, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO GONZALES

    105 Phil 47

  • G.R. No. L-12194 January 24, 1959 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANNA HARRIET CLEMENT, ET AL.

    105 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. L-12772 January 24, 1959 - SUSANA MACAZO, ET AL. v. BENILDO NUÑEZ

    105 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. L-9146 January 27, 1959 - TERESA VDA. DE FERNANDEZ v. NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHIL.

    105 Phil 59

  • G.R. No. 11598 January 27, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO BUSTAMANTE

    105 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-12623 January 27, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO GUIAO Y DAVID

    105 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. L-12731 January 27, 1959 - FAUSTO CATAGONA v. SEGUNDO DIONISIO

    105 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-11831 January 29, 1959 - ISIDORA AUREO v. FUNDADOR AUREO

    105 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. L-9585 January 30, 1959 - PETRITA PASCUAL, ET AL. v. RUDYARDO SANTIAGO, ET AL.

    105 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-11169 January 30, 1959 - FELIPE HORTILLOSA v. RODOLFO GANZON

    105 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. L-11263 January 30, 1959 - OSMUNDO C. RAMOS v. R. C. DEANE, ET AL.

    105 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-11486 January 30, 1959 - JESUS ALVAREZ v. DIRECTOR of LANDS

    105 Phil 115

  • G.R. No. L-11836 January 30, 1959 - MANUEL M. COSTA v. GENOVEVA V. BALMES

    105 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-11932 January 30, 1959 - ASSOCIATED INSURANCE & SURETY CO. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF PAMPANGA

    105 Phil 123

  • G.R. No. L-13709 January 30, 1959 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO TOGLE

    105 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-11090 January 31, 1959 - VICENTE E. GROSPE v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

    105 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. L-11764 January 31, 1959 - ENRIQUE CUISON, ET AL. v. ISIDRO G. FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    105 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-12054 January 31, 1959 - JOSE ESCAY v. JOSE TEODORO, SR. ., ETC., ET AL.

    105 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-12111 January 31, 1959 - AGATONA GERONIMO, ET AL. v. JOSE NAVA, ET AL.

    105 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-12520 January 31, 1959 - SEISMUNDO RAMOS v. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF DAET, ET AL.

    105 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. L-12271 January 31, 1959 - JOSEPH ABELOW v. JOSE DE LA RIVA

    105 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-13059 January 31, 1959 - TIMOTEO VALENCIA, JR. v. FELIPE MABILANGAN

    105 Phil 162