Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > March 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. L-4257 March 31, 1908 - SIMON MOSESGELD SANTIAGO v. RUFINO QUIMSON ET AL.

010 Phil 707:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-4257. March 31, 1908. ]

SIMON MOSESGELD SANTIAGO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RUFINO QUIMSON ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Eugenio de Lara, for Appellants.

Gabriel and Borbon, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. REALTY; SALE AND LEASE; OWNERSHIP. — G. sold certain lands to S. and after the sale, the purchaser leased the lands to the seller. Upon the death of the lessee the heirs of the latter took possession and alleged ownership on the ground that the lands were conjugal partnership property and that the original sale to S. was void. Held, That the defendants’ allegations were not proven and that they should restore the property to S. and pay rent for the period elapsed since the expiration of the lease.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


In the complaint, the restitution of possession of seventeen parcels of land is prayed for, and the payment of the sum of P810 as rental with interest thereon, together with a further sum of P4,770 as damages for the illegal retention of the said lands.

In view of the evidence adduced at the trial, the court entered the following judgment:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The court finds that the following facts have been fully proven. On the 2d of January, 1896, Rosa Gongon sold to Simon Mosesgeld, the plaintiff herein, the seventeen parcels of land, with the right of repurchase, now sued for. On the following day, that is on the 3d of January, 1896, the plaintiff leased the said seventeen parcels to the former owner thereof, Rosa Gongon, for the period of two years at a rental of 750 pesos for each agricultural year. The lease expired on the 4th of January, 1898.

"It is an accepted fact that the said Rosa Gongon died on the 14th day of May, 1897, and that after her death, the defendants, her heirs, entered into possession of the property in question, and up to the institution of the complaint they continued in possession. It was also acknowledged by the defendants that the plaintiff requested them to deliver up the said property and to pay the rental due for the last year of the lease. The court considers that as matter of fact the defendants have not paid the rental for the last year, that is, the year 1897-98.

"The defendants have attempted to prove that they possess the lands in question as heirs of their father. It clearly appears that said lands originally belonged to Rosa Gongon, the mother of the defendants; that at the time of her death she had no more right to said lands than that of a simple lessee, and that, therefore, when she died she could not have transmitted to her children any right of ownership to said lands.

"Let judgment be entered against the defendants, sentencing them to make restitution of the seventeen parcels of land described in the complaint of the plaintiff herein, and to pay him the rental corresponding to the agricultural year 1898, namely, P750, together with legal interest thereon from the time when the complaint was interposed, with costs against the defendants."cralaw virtua1aw library

This judgment was duly excepted to by the defendants, and appeal was made to this court by means of a bill of exceptions.

The defendants maintain that the land in controversy belonged to the conjugal partnership property (sociedad legal de gananciales) of their parents, Francisco Quimson and Rosa Gongon, and that upon the death of the former, the latter sold said lands to the plaintiff without having previously liquidated the said partnership, for which reason the sale is null and void under the law, because the lands sold were not the exclusive property of the seller. And they point out as an error, committed by the judge below, the fact that "in his decision, so reads their brief, "he ignored the certificate of the acto conciliatoria offered as evidence by the defendants, a solemn document and the only one to prove that the real estate in question was acquired during the conjugal partnership, and that, therefore, it sets aside the subsequent sale executed in favor of the plaintiff by the late Rosa Gongon."cralaw virtua1aw library

The said acto de conciliacion was celebrated between Rosa Gongon on the part, and her daughters Gertrudis and Domingo Quimson on the other, in connection with the payment of the legal portion due from the father to the said daughters. It is true that the record of the said action reads that "all the property had and acquired" (during the marriage of Rosa Gongon and her late husband Francisco Quimson) "was common to the conjugal partnership, and therefore gananciales;" but the difficulty is that there is no evidence whatever that the lands in controversy form part of the said property. The contrary would rather appear from the statement of the property acquired during marriage which is attached to said record, inasmuch as all the lands indicated therein are under the following heading, "Land held under a mortgage title," with the circumstance that in each item the names of those who were apparently the owners of the mortgaged land are stated. Not a single parcel of land appears in said statement as owned by the spouses Quimson and Gongon. At all events, and be the property what it may, it has not been shown that the lands in controversy are the same lands or at least that they form part of the lands that appears in the said statement without any specification or description whatever, beyond the names of the places where they are situated. Neither has it been shown in any manner that the lands sued for were acquired during their marriage, which is the least that the defendants should have proved in support of their claim.

On the other hand, it is stated in clause two of the deed of sale executed by Rosa Gongon in favor of the plaintiff, that the seventeen parcels of land, "the subject of the sale, were acquired by her by private purchase from the original owners thereof, and that she has been in possession of the same many years "as owner," as proven in the possessory proceedings that she instituted in the court of the justice of the peace on account of the lack of recorded title, . . .which are recorded in the registry of property . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

In view of the foregoing, the judge below not only did not err, but acted rightly in not considering the land as property acquired during marriage.

In the defendants’ answer to the complaint it is said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the defendant Gertrudis Quimson has no interest whatever in the possession and enjoyment of the parcels of land claimed in the complaint because, while the said Rosa Gongon was still living, the said defendant received in cash the whole of her share of the inheritance, and because, as a matter of fact, she has not worked nor possessed, under any sense, any of the parcels above referred to; therefore, she ought to be excluded from the complaint."cralaw virtua1aw library

The plaintiff has not proven that what is stated, in this portion of the complaint is not true, and this being the case, the said Gertrudis can not in justice be ordered to make restitution of the possession of the land in controversy, inasmuch as she does not possess the same nor has she ever been in possession thereof.

By virtue of the foregoing, the complaint is dismissed as to the said Gertrudis Quimson, the judgment appealed from being thus reversed in so far as it applies to her, and affirmed as to the other defendants, with the costs of this instance against them. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3457 March 2, 1908 - YU BUNUAN ET AL. v. ORESTES MARCAIDA

    010 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. L-4065 March 2, 1908 - BRUNO VILLANUEVA v. MAXIMA ROQUE

    010 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-3717 March 5, 1908 - FELIX VELASCO v. MARTIN MASA

    010 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-4237 March 5, 1908 - SERAFIN UY PIAOCO v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-4447 March 6, 1908 - MURPHY v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    010 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 4438 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JACINTO SUNGA, ET AL

    011 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-3811 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BLANCO

    010 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-4026 March 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PASCUAL DULAY

    010 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. L-3880 March 9, 1908 - TEOPISTA CASTRO v. ANTONIO MARTINEZ GALLEGOS

    010 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 4131 March 9, 1908 - SERAPIO AVERIA v. LUCIO REBOLDERA

    010 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 4347 March 9, 1908 - JOSE ROGERS v. SMITH

    010 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 3279 March 11, 1908 - CITY OF MANILA v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    010 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. L-2129 March 12, 1908 - C. HEINZEN & CO. v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    010 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-3523 March 12, 1908 - CARIDAD MUGURUZA v. INT’L. BANKING CORP.

    010 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3855 March 12, 1908 - EUFEMIA LORETO v. JULIO HERRERA

    010 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-3907 March 12, 1908 - ROMAN ABAYA v. DONATA ZALAMERO

    010 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-4085 March 12, 1908 - CARLS PALANCA TANGUINLAY v. FRANCISCO G. QUIROS

    010 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. L-4087 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. AMADOR BARRIOS

    010 Phil 366

  • G.R. No. L-4341 March 12, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS ROJO

    010 Phil 369

  • G.R. No. L-469 March 13, 1908 - T. H. PARDO DE TAVERA v. HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

    010 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3848 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES GIMENO

    010 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 4146 March 13, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PETRA DE GUZMAN

    010 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. L-3951 March 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO GARCIA

    010 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-4169 March 14, 1908 - WILHELM BAUERMANN v. MAXIMA CASAS

    010 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. L-4205 March 16, 1908 - JULIAN CABAÑAS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    010 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. L-4077 March 17, 1908 - MACARIA MATIAS v. AGUSTIN ALVAREZ

    010 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. L-4127 March 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHARLES J. KOSEL

    010 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 4051 March 18, 1908 - CATALINA BERNARDO v. VICENTE GENATO

    011 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-3606 March 18, 1908 - IGNACIO ACASIO v. FELICISIMA ALBANO

    010 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3699 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO CUSI

    010 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-4007 March 18, 1908 - WARNER BARNES & CO. v. E. DIAZ & CO.

    010 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-4213 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. POTENCIANO REYES

    010 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-4233 March 18, 1908 - EXEQUIEL DELGADO v. MANUEL RIESGO

    010 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. L-4318 March 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GENEROSO ACADEMIA

    010 Phil 431

  • G.R. No. L-4147 March 19, 1908 - AGRIPINO DE LA RAMA v. CONCEPCION SANCHEZ, ET AL.

    010 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. L-4209 March 19, 1908 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. PILAR CORRALES

    010 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-3904 March 20, 1908 - KO POCO v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-4104 March 20, 1908 - JAO IGCO v. W. MORGAN SHUSTER

    010 Phil 448

  • G.R. No. L-4155 March 20, 1908 - RUPERTO BELZUNCE v. VALENTINA FERNANDEZ

    010 Phil 452

  • G.R. No. L-4158 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CARIÑO

    010 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. L-4196 March 20, 1908 - BENWIT ULLMANN v. FELIX ULLMANN and CO.

    010 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-4241 March 20, 1908 - AGUSTIN G. GAVIERES v. ADMIN. F THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF LUISA

    010 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-4399 March 20, 1908 - BENITO LEGARDA v. S. L. P. ROCHA Y RUIZDELGADO

    010 Phil 474

  • G.R. No. L-4436 March 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO CASTRO DI TIAN LAY

    010 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 4109 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JULIANA TORRES

    011 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-3968 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCOS LOPEZ

    010 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3975 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL MARIN

    010 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-4167 March 21, 1908 - RAFAELA SALMO v. LUISA ICAZA

    010 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. L-4300 March 21, 1908 - MARIA BARRETTO v. LEONA REYES

    010 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-4324 March 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO OLLALES

    010 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3550 March 23, 1908 - GO CHIOCO v. INCHAUSTI & CO.

    010 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. L-3780 March 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SELLANO

    010 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-4132 March 23, 1908 - IN RE: MARIA SIASON Y MADRID DE LEDESMA

    010 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-4215 March 23, 1908 - LUCIO I. LIMPANGCO v. JUANA MERCADO

    010 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-4274 March 23, 1908 - JOSE ALANO v. JOSE BABASA

    010 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-4352 March 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO BAYOT

    010 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2674 March 25, 1908 - JOAQUIN JOVER Y COSTAS v. INSULAR GOV’T., ET AL.

    010 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-3357 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. A. W. PRAUTCH

    010 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-4012 March 25, 1908 - MAXIMO CORTES Y PROSPERO v. CITY OF MANILA

    010 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. L-4063 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARIÑO, ET AL.

    010 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. L-4091 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BERNABE BACHO

    010 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. L-4354 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO POBLETE

    010 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-4418 March 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES V. ESTRADA

    010 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-3339 March 26, 1908 - ROSA LLORENTE v. CEFERINO RODRIGUEZ

    010 Phil 585

  • G.R. No. L-3812 March 26, 1908 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEV’T. CO. v. BARRY BALDWIN

    010 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-4100 March 26, 1908 - MARIA SINGAYAN v. CALIXTA MABBORANG

    010 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-4121 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GARCIA

    010 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. L-4175 March 26, 1908 - A. W. BEAN v. B. W. CADWALLADER CO.

    010 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. L-4207 March 26, 1908 - JUAN VALLE v. SIXTO GALERA

    010 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. L-4265 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS PASCUAL

    010 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-4322 March 26, 1908 - INOCENTE MARTINEZ v. G. E. CAMPBELL

    010 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. L-4376 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LIM SIP

    010 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-4420 March 26, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. NARCISO CAGUIMBAL

    010 Phil 630

  • G.R. No. 4160 March 26, 1908 - ANGEL GUSTILO, ET AL. v. FEDERICO MATTI, ET AL.

    011 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 3539 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    011 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 4372 March 27, 1908 - ENRIQUE M. BARRETTO v. CITY OF MANILA

    011 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-3612 March 27, 1908 - DOMINGO LIM v. JOSE LIM

    010 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-3762 March 27, 1908 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ALEJANDRO AMECHAZURRA

    010 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. L-4037 March 27, 1908 - LIM JAO LU v. H. B. McCOY

    010 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. L-4200 March 27, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SEGUNDO SAMONTE

    010 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-4203 March 27, 1908 - MANUEL CRAME SY PANCO v. RICARDO GONZAGA

    010 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. L-4469A March 27, 1908 - FELIPE G. CALDERON v. JOSE MCMICKING

    010 Phil 650

  • G.R. No. L-4017 March 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO MARIÑO

    010 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. L-3007 March 30, 1908 - ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITY OF BADOC

    010 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. L-4198 March 30, 1908 - JUAN MERCADO v. JOSE ABANGAN

    010 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-4222 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO CERNIAS

    010 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. L-4281 March 30, 1908 - JOSE GARRIDO v. AGUSTIN ASENCIO

    010 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. L-4377 March 30, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE GARCIA GAVIERES

    010 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. L-3469 March 31, 1908 - JOSEFA AGUIRRE v. MANUEL VILLABA

    010 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-4078 March 31, 1908 - CONCEPCION MENDIOLA v. NICOLASA PACALDA

    010 Phil 705

  • G.R. No. L-4257 March 31, 1908 - SIMON MOSESGELD SANTIAGO v. RUFINO QUIMSON ET AL.

    010 Phil 707