Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1962 > October 1962 Decisions > G.R. No. L-17429 October 31, 1962 - GLICERIA RAMOS, ET AL. v. JULIA CARIÑO, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-17429. October 31, 1962.]

GLICERIA RAMOS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JULIA CARIÑO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. RUFINO MEJIA, ET AL., intervenors-appellees.

Raymundo Meris-Morales, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Romulo M. Vesperas for Defendants-Appellees.

Ranulfo C. Mejia and Cresente G. Viloria for intervenors-appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. DONATIONS; WHEN CONSIDERED INOFFICIOUS; PROOF REQUIRED. — In order that a donation can be considered inofficious so as to deprive one’s rights as forced heir of the donor, it should be proved that the value of the property donated exceeds the value of the free portion plus the donee’s share in the properties of the donor (Articles 750, 752, Civil Code).


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Honorable Lourdes P. San Diego, presiding, dismissing the action instituted by plaintiffs, declaring the defendants and intervenors owners of the parcels of land sought to be recovered in the complaint, etc.

Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that during the lifetime of the spouses Gaspar Ramos and Angela de Guzman, they were owners of three parcels of land situated in the Municipality of San Jacinto, Pangasinan, having acquired the same during their marriage; that plaintiff Gliceria Ramos and deceased Alejandro Ramos are the children of the said spouses Gaspar Ramos and Angela de Guzman, and by the provisions of the law of succession plaintiffs became owners in equal parts of the said three parcels of land; that upon the death of Gaspar Ramos his widow administered the properties and delivered to plaintiff her share in the products thereof; that upon the death of the widow Angela de Guzman, Alejandro Ramos continued delivering plaintiff’s share in the products of said lands; that similarly upon the death of Alejandro Ramos, his widow Julia Cariño continued giving plaintiff her share of the products of the lands in question until the year 1948; but that in 1949 the widow Julia Cariño stopped giving plaintiff her share in the products, alleging that she and her children are sole owners thereof, etc., etc.

Subsequently an amended complaint was filed whereby Estefania Sonday was included as a party defendant as purchaser of the second parcel of land. It is further alleged therein that Angela de Guzman, widow of Gaspar Ramos, donated that land to her son Alejandro Ramos, but said donation is null and void and the certificate of title issued in the name of Alejandro Ramos by reason of the said donation is also null and void because said donation deprived plaintiff of her share as heir in the donor’s properties. The defendants answered the complaint denying the material allegations thereof and alleging that the lands subject of the action were acquired by Alejandro Ramos as a donation from his mother Angela de Guzman, with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff; that when Alejandro Ramos married Julia Cariño the three parcels of land were donated to the latter, and since then the latter had always been in possession of the lands openly, peacefully, adversely, publicly, continuously and uninterruptedly in the concept of owner without opposition on the part of the plaintiff; that the said lands had been sold with the consent of the Court to the defendant Estefania Sonday and the latter had been in adverse possession thereof for more than twenty years.

Rufino Mejia intervened in the action alleging that he is the owner of the third parcel of land subject of the complaint, having acquired the same from the late Alejandro Ramos in 1943. Maximo Mejia also filed a motion for intervention and in his complaint alleged that he had acquired one of the parcels of land in question (Lot No. 1 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1738 in the name of Alejandro Ramos); that he had secured a transfer certificate of title of the land since 1950 and had been in possession thereof since the time of his acquisition up to the present.

In answer to the complaint in intervention filed by Rufino Mejia plaintiff alleged that one-half of the land allegedly sold to the said intervenor belongs to her; that Rufino Mejia is a relative of Gliceria Ramos and the purchase by him of the property was made in bad faith. Answering the complaint in intervention of Maximo Mejia plaintiff denied all the allegations and alleged by way of special defense that the said intervenor is not a purchaser in good faith because he purchased the property knowing that the same belongs to the minor heirs of Alejandro Ramos, etc.

The documents submitted at the trial of the case show that the first two parcels of land subject of the complaint were originally registered in the name of Angela de Guzman, with title thereto, Original Certificate of Title No. 25500, issued in her name on October 16, 1923. (Exh. "B") On December 20, 1940 Angela de Guzman donated said parcels of land to Alejandro Ramos, her son, and thereupon the original certificate of title issued in the name of Angela de Guzman was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 17338-P issued in the name of Alejandro Ramos. (Exh. "9") In the year 1950 Julia Cariño, wife of Alejandro Ramos, was appointed guardian of her minor children. Subsequently Julia Cariño and the minors sold Lot No. 1 of the lands registered in the name of Alejandro Ramos to Maximo Mejia. The sale was annotated at the back of the certificate of title on May 23, 1950 (Exh. "9-b"). Pursuant to an authority granted by the Court, Julia Cariño sold Lot No. 2 in the title of Alejandro Ramos to Estefania Sonday and this sale was registered at the back of the certificate of title on June 7, 1951. This land is now registered in the name of Estefania Sonday under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 10677. (Exh. "10").

The court makes the following finding as to whether or not the purchase of said Lots 1 and 2 by the defendants Sonday and Mejia was a purchase in bad faith:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The plaintiff has not convincingly shown bad faith on the part of either the defendant Estefania Sonday or Maximo Mejia, the intervenor so that, for which reason, their purchase of the lands in question and their acquisition of transfer certificates of title thereto in due course be nullified: their purchase may not be revoked even if the seller, as alleged in the complaint, has acquired the title thru fraud. (Raymundo, Et Al., v. Afable, 96 Phil., 655; 51 Off. Gas. [3] 1329). . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

As regards the third parcel of land the Court below held:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"With regard to parcel (3), plaintiff has not even established the fact that it formerly belonged to her parents. . . . Whereas, parcel (3) comprises 2,572 square meters and has for boundaries on the North Mariano Urbino; on the East, Francisco Mejia; on the South, the same; and on the West, Moises Sta. Cruz, the subject matter of Exhibits "D" and "F" comprises 50,973 square meters, bounded on the North by the old Pozorrubio-San Jacinto Road; on the NE by Valentine Cruz, Lazaro Perez and Maria Cruz; and on the SE by Silvestre Callao; and the subject-matter of Exhibit "E" is a piece of land 20,241 square meters in area with boundaries on the North, Mariano Mejia, Francisco, Maximo and Emilia Mejia; on the South, Salvador del Mundo; and on the Southwest, Engracio de Guzman. On the other hand, defendants and intervenor Rufino Mejia are in possession of a deed of sale, covering a piece of land with the exact area and boundaries as parcel (3) of the complaint, dated as early as 1943, i.e., during Alejandro Ramos’ lifetime, executed by the latter in favor of Rufino Mejia."cralaw virtua1aw library

As to the first two lots, plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be sustained for two important reasons. The first is plaintiff’s failure to prove that the properties donated by Angela de Guzman to her son Alejandro de Guzman are the only properties of which she was seized at the time of her death or at the time of the donation. In order that the donation can be considered inofficious such as to deprive plaintiff’s rights as forced heir of Angela de Guzman, plaintiff should have proved that the value of the property donated exceeds the value of the free portion plus the donee’s share in the properties of the donor (Arts. 750, 752, Civil Code).

The second reason is the fact that the two properties have already been sold by Alejandro Ramos to the defendant Sonday and the intervenor Maximo Mejia, both of whom now hold certificates of title in their own names. No evidence having been submitted by plaintiff that they acquired the Lots in bad faith, then good faith is presumed (Art. 527, Civil Code) and their titles are valid.

With respect to the third lot, the court below has found that plaintiff’s evidence referred to another lot, a bigger one. There was a failure on the part of plaintiff to prove that it belonged to plaintiff’s father and/or mother, and also failure on her part to show that, even though it belonged to her parents, the transfer to Alejandro Ramos is inofficious, so that plaintiff could be adjudged entitled to a share therein as heir of her parents.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the court below is hereby affirmed. With costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J. Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, 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






October-1962 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-10614 October 22, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TUAZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17474 October 25, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE V. BAGTAS

  • A.C. No. 57 October 30, 1962 - HERMENEGILDO U. ABSALUD v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-48922 October 30, 1962 - AMPARO M. VDA. DE ROYO v. N. T. DEEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12919 October 30, 1962 - UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS HOSPITAL v. U.S.T. HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15183 October 30, 1962 - IN RE: PAULINO P. GOCHECO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO T. ESTACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15548 October 30, 1962 - JOSE KABIGTING v. ACTING DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-16096 October 30, 1962 - C. N. HODGES v. DY BUNCIO & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16174 October 30, 1962 - RUBEN O. SANGALANG v. BRIGIDA VERGARA

  • G.R. No. L-16519 October 30, 1962 - PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN, ET AL. v. PEDRO PALISOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16705 October 30, 1962 - ANTONIO E. QUEROL v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-17053 October 30, 1962 - GAVINO LAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17176 October 30, 1962 - ROSENDO RALLA v. MATEO L. ALCASID, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-17207 & L-17372 October 30, 1962 - U.S.T. PRESS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17399 October 30, 1962 - BONIFACIO SY PIÑERO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17530 October 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAUSIANO ENOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17570 October 30, 1962 - ROSALINA MARTINEZ v. AURELIA GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17645 October 30, 1962 - JULIANA ZAPATA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

  • G.R. No. L-17784 October 30, 1962 - MARIANO GARCHITORENA v. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17822 October 30, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO DOMENDEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17924 October 30, 1962 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18008 October 30, 1962 - ELISEA LAPERAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18066 October 30, 1962 - JUANITA NAIRA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18068 October 30, 1962 - IN RE: ANTONIO GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18112 October 30, 1962 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA NG ALAK v. HAMILTON DISTILLERY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18216 October 30, 1962 - STOCKHOLDERS OF F. GUANZON, ET AL. v. REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-18235 October 30, 1962 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. KIN SAN RICE AND CORN MILL COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18239 October 30, 1962 - CESAR ROBLES, ET AL. v. DONATO TIMARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18622 October 30, 1962 - LIM SON v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-18953 October 30, 1962 - EMILIO ARZAGA v. FRANCISCO BOBIS, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-20010 October 30, 1962 - FRANCISCO BOIX, ET AL. v. MELQUIADES G. ILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13486 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN BAGSICAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13968 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO CORTEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14366 October 31, 1962 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14542 October 31, 1962 - MANUEL A. CORDERO v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14848 October 31, 1962 - COLUMBIAN ROPE COMPANY OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. TACLOBAN ASSOC. OF LABORERS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15201 and L-15202 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO G. TIONGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15310 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO ABLOG

  • G.R. No. L-15605 October 31, 1962 - URSULA FRANCISCO v. JULIAN RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15983 October 31, 1962 - MAXIMO ACIERTO, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16587 October 31, 1962 - VICTORIA D. MIAILHE, ET AL. v. RUFINO P. HALILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16708 October 31, 1962 - BENIGNO T. PEREZ, ET AL. v. J. ANTONIO ARANETA

  • G.R. No. L-16789 October 31, 1962 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17008 October 31, 1962 - ALLISON J. GIBBS, ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17062 October 31, 1962 - MARIANO S. RAMIREZ v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17168 October 31, 1962 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. AMBROSIO CABILDO

  • G.R. No. L-17429 October 31, 1962 - GLICERIA RAMOS, ET AL. v. JULIA CARIÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17560 October 31, 1962 - VICENTE GARCIA, ET AL. v. JOSE FENOY

  • G.R. No. L-17619 October 31, 1962 - FRANCISCA GATCHALIAN v. GORGONIO PAVILIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17439 October 31, 1962 - JOSE IRA, ET AL. v. MARINA ZAFRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17760 October 31, 1962 - RAMCAR, INC. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17772 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO BAUTISTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17898 October 31, 1962 - PASTOR D. AGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17914 October 31, 1962 - ROSARIO MARTIN VDA. DE MALLARI v. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-17991 October 31, 1962 - JOSE MA. DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18006 October 31, 1962 - IN RE: CUAKI TAN SI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18030 October 31, 1962 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESMAEL SUSUKAN

  • G.R. No. L-18078 October 31, 1962 - AGRICULTURAL CREDIT AND COOPERATIVE FINANCING CORP. v. GOYENA LUMBER CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18231 October 31, 1962 - MIGUEL R. SOCCO, ET AL. v. SALVADORA G. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18253 October 31, 1962 - WENCESLAO PLAZA, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18285 October 31, 1962 - IN RE: TOMASA V. BULOS v. VICENTE TECSON

  • G.R. No. L-18338 October 31, 1962 - KAISAHAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA LA CAMPANA v. RICARDO TANTONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18379 October 31, 1962 - AMANDA V. CABIGAO v. AMADO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18588 October 31, 1962 - INES R. DE PAGES, ET AL. v. MATEO CANONOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18589 October 31, 1962 - BALDOMERO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. ALEJANDRA CABLAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19968-69 October 31, 1962 - ALIPIO N. CASILAN, ET AL. v. FILOMENO B. YBAÑEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20131 October 31, 1962 - MACO STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. MACAPANTON ABBAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20141-42 October 31, 1962 - JOAQUIN CUATICO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20389 October 31, 1962 - FRANCISCO B. BAUTISTA v. PRIMITIVO A. GARCIA