Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > February 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19280 February 10, 1967 - EUGENIA CORPUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19280. February 10, 1967.]

EUGENIA CORPUS, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, MARIANO LUDAN and FRANCISCA RAMOS, and GENOVEVA ITO, Respondents.

F. S. Galutera for Petitioner.

Alejandro O. Selapan for respondents Mariano, Et. Al.

Pedro Flores for the other respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC LAND ACT; SEC. 119; CIVIL LAW; ART. 1602; SALES; REMEDIAL LAW; APPEALS. — Where a parcel of land covered by a homestead patent is sold by the widow of the patentee with the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and becomes the subject of a litigation between the vendee and a third person to whom she had previously sold the same under an unregistered sale, such third person cannot ask that the sale be interpreted as an equitable mortgage under Art. 1602 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, for not being a party thereto; and where the widow herself, as intervenor, has raised the issue and the Court of First Instance, instead of ruling on it, recognized her right to redeem under Sec. 119 of the Public Land Act but the Court of Appeals has ignored such recognition, she lost her right of redemption for not having come to the Supreme Court for review, and the third person who appealed the case to the Supreme Court cannot exercise that right in her own behalf, nor pretend to have acquired it by derivative title under Sec. 119 of the Public Land Act, as appellant is not the heir of the original homesteader.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Appeal by certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in its CA-G.R. No. 22073-R.

The facts, as stated by said Court, are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It appears from the stipulation and the additional evidence presented that the disputed area of four hectares is part of the land situated in Dupax, Nueva Vizcaya acquired by intervenor Genoveva Ito as a homestead. On April 22, 1948 she sold a retro one hectare thereof to defendant Jose Molina. On September 15, 1952, she sold the whole four hectares to defendant-appellant Eugenia Corpus also subject to the former’s right of redemption. Both sales were unregistered. Appellant and Molina cultivated the land and paid its taxes. After the present action was commenced, Molina conveyed his one hectare to appellant who presently is in possession of the entire property. After the transfer to appellant, intervenor mortgaged the land to Dr. Leon Velasco. The mortgage was annotated in intervenor’s title. On June 25, 1953, intervenor again sold the land to plaintiffs with the right to redeem it in one year. With the proceeds of the sale she paid her debt to Velasco and the mortgage annotation was accordingly cancelled. Plaintiffs, who had no knowledge of any prior conveyance of, or encumbrance on, the land except the mortgage in favor of Velasco, registered in good faith the sale in their favor. The sale had the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Intervenor having failed to redeem the land within the stipulated period of one year plaintiffs secured a court order consolidating their title thereto. Defendant Molina and appellant refused to vacate the property so plaintiffs brought this action to recover it."cralaw virtua1aw library

The plaintiffs below were the spouses Mariano Ludan and Francisca Ramos, now respondents; and the defendants were Eugenia Corpus and Jose Molina, the former now the sole petitioner. Genoveva Ito was intervenor, who sought a reconveyance of the property from the plaintiffs. The Court of First Instance rendered judgment as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In view of the foregoing considerations, decision is hereby rendered declaring the plaintiffs, spouses Mariano Ludan and Francisca Ramos as owners of the parcel of land in question consisting of 4 hectares which is a portion of that parcel of land described in Original Certificate of Title No. 1579 (Annex A and Exhibit AA-intervenor); ordering the defendant Eugenia Corpus to restore the possession of said parcel of land in question to the plaintiffs the spouses Mariano Ludan and Francisca Ramos; and declaring the intervenor Genoveva Ito with right to repurchase the said parcel of land in question from the plaintiffs, the spouses Mariano Ludan and Francisca Ramos upon payment by her to them of the sum of P6,000.00, the consideration of the deed of sale with right of repurchase (Annex E) to be effected in a legal deed of conveyance. The complaint with respect to the defendant Jose Molina is hereby dismissed. And without special pronouncement as to the costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

Defendant Eugenia Corpus appealed to the Court of Appeals, which thereafter affirmed the judgment with the only modification that it declared the intervenor to be without right to redeem the property in dispute, since the period of one year mentioned in the contract of sale to the plaintiffs had already expired. In other words, the plaintiffs were recognized as the owners of the property without any qualification, and hence entitled to its possession. Review of this decision is now sought by Eugenia Corpus alone, who avers that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in not applying the provision of Article 1602 of the New Civil Code; (2) in not granting to petitioner the right to redeem the land in question; and (3) in reviewing and reversing the judgment of the lower court in favor of respondents Mariano Ludan and Francisca Ramos, who did not appeal from said judgment.

On the first point, petitioner contends that the pacto de retro sale executed by Genoveva Ito in favor of the spouses Mariano Ludan and Francisca Ramos should be interpreted as an equitable mortgage in the light of Article 1602 of the New Civil Code. The contention is untenable. This issue could not have been raised in the trial court by petitioner and cannot now be raised before us because she was not a party to the said pacto de retro sale. Genoveva Ito did raise it in her complaint in intervention, but the trial court did not rule upon it in her favor and instead declared the transaction to be a real sale, although recognizing her right to redeem pursuant to section 119 of the Public Land Act, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 119. Every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions, when proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs, within a period of five years from the date of the conveyance."cralaw virtua1aw library

However, as already pointed out, this right of redemption was eliminated in the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and Genoveva Ito has not sought a review thereof insofar as she is concerned. The question is now closed.

The foregoing disposes likewise of petitioner’s second assignment of error, for if Genoveva Ito herself has lost her right of redemption by the judgment of the Court of Appeals, with which she is obviously in agreement, not having come to us for review, petitioner cannot exercise that right in her own behalf. Nor can she pretend to have acquired it by derivative title from Genoveva Ito pursuant to section 119 of the Public Land Act. Petitioner does not come within the scope of this provision, for she is neither the widow nor a legal heir of Ito, the original applicant and homestead owner.

In view of the considerations already set forth, it is unnecessary to pass upon petitioner’s third assignment of error.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J. P., Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, 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






February-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22533 February 9, 1967 - PLACIDO C. RAMOS, ET AL. v. PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO. OF THE P.I., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22729 February 9, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. HON. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25999 February 9, 1967 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION v. JUDGE AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18461 February 10, 1967 - NORTON & HARRISON CO., ET AL. v. NORTON & HARRISON CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19280 February 10, 1967 - EUGENIA CORPUS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22065 February 10, 1967 - FRANCISCO ORTIZ v. HON. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22568 February 10, 1967 - DIOSCORO V. ASTORGA v. FIDEL FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22785, L-22826, L-22937 February 10, 1967 - CHAMBER OF TAXICAB SERVICES, ET AL. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24415 February 10, 1967 - ANDRES MORALES v. MANUEL TUGUINAY

  • G.R. No. L-23895 February 16, 1967 - SEMENIANO TRAJANO v. MATEO B. INCISO

  • G.R. No. L-19485 February 17, 1967 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24253 February 17, 1967 - BRIGIDO CRISTINO v. LEON CAVITE

  • G.R. No. L-20525 February 18, 1967 - PETRONILA PINTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21039 February 18, 1967 - FLORENTINO PILAR v. SEC. OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21336 February 18, 1967 - VICENTE MENDOZA, ET AL. v. TIBURCIO DUAVE

  • G.R. No. L-22077 February 18, 1967 - ALFREDO K. TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-22238 February 18, 1967 - CLAVECILLA RADIO SYSTEM v. AGUSTIN ANTILLON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22780 February 18, 1967 - AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24110 February 18, 1967 - LEONCIO BARRAMEDA v. CARMEN GONTANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25758 February 18, 1967 - JOAQUIN ORTEGA v. EULOGIO F. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-25567 February 20, 1967 - CIRILO M. MANAOIS v. HON. JOSE S. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19777 February 20, 1967 - CROMWELL COMMERCIAL CO. INC. v. CROMWELL COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES AND LABORERS UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20819 February 21, 1967 - IN RE: GAN TSITUNG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. L-26053 February 21, 1967 - CITY OF MANILA v. GERARDO GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21012 February 25, 1967 - GLICERIO TINIO, ET AL. v. RODRIGO MACAPAGAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20445 February 25, 1967 - ANICIA V. MERCED, ET AL. v. COLUMBINA VDA. DE MERCED, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21696 February 25, 1967 - VISAYAN STEVEDORE TRANS. CO., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24769 February 25, 1967 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21805 February 25, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FIDEL TAN

  • A.C. No. 389 February 28, 1967 - FLORA QUINGWA v. ARMANDO PUNO

  • G.R. No. L-17215 February 28, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CATALINO SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-18759 February 28, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANUEL LEDESMA

  • G.R. No. L-18707 February 28, 1967 - AGUSTIN O. CASEÑAS v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ VDA. DE ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20192 February 28, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF CRESENCIO V. MARTIR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18930 February 28, 1967 - PHILIPPINE SUGAR INSTITUTE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21120 February 28, 1967 - PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC. v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21894 February 28, 1967 - LOPE DESIATA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22465 February 28, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. ASCENCION P. OLARTE

  • G.R. No. L-22677 February 28, 1967 - PEDRO III FORTICH-CELDRAN, ET AL. v. IGNACIO A. CELDRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23098 February 28, 1967 - DOMINGO T. JACINTO v. HON. AGUSTIN P. MONTESA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23827 February 28, 1967 - SANTIAGO A. SILVERIO v. PEDRO CASTRO

  • G.R. No. L-24468 February 28, 1967 - ANTONIO K. BISNAR v. BRAULIO LAPASA

  • G.R. No. L-24477 February 28, 1967 - JOSE KATIGBAK v. RICARDO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-25044 February 28, 1967 - SAN PABLO OIL FACTORY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26816 February 28, 1967 - PABLO DE JESUS, ET AL. v. GREGORIO N. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27191 February 28, 1967 - ADELAIDA TANEGA v. HON. HONORATO B. MASAKAYAN, ET AL.