Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > March 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 8461 March 25, 1914 - RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO v. CECILIO IMAZ

027 Phil 314:



[G.R. No. 8461. March 25, 1914. ]

RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CECILIO IMAZ, administrator of the estate of the deceased Salustiano Zubeldia, and WARMER, BARNES & CO., LIMITED, Defendants-Appellees.

Ceferino M. Villareal and Domingo C. Diaz for Appellant.

Rafael dela Sierra for appellee Imaz.

Haussermann, Cohn & Fisher for the other appellee.


1. VENDOR AND PURCHASER; CONTRACT OF PURCHASE AND SALE; ACTION TO CORRECT MISTAKE IN INSTRUMENT. — Where two persons engage, the one to sell and the other to purchase, a given piece of property, with visible boundaries which are agreed upon by the contracting parties as the land to be bought and sold, and the vendor by a mistake in the description in the conveyance includes therein land hereto- fore sold to a third person not include within the visible boundaries referred to, an action will lie in favor of the vendor to the instrument so as correctly to describe the land actually sold.

2. REGISTRATION OF LAND; TORRENS TITLE; MISTAKE IN DEED OF CONVEYANCE. — Under such circumstances the purchaser, although the title to the land described in his conveyance had been duly registered under the Torrens system, and he received, as a result of the purchase and sale, certificate of title issued in pursuance of Act No. 496, did not obtain an indefeasible title to the land mistakenly included in said certificate of title.

3. ID; ID.; ID. — The peculiar force of a title under Act No. 496 is exhibited only when the purchase has sold to an innocent third person the lands described in his conveyance. Generally speaking, as between the vendor and the purchaser, the same rights and remedies exist with reference to land registered under Act No. 496 as exist in relation to land not so registered.



This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Albay in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff in an action of ejectment.

The facts in the case are substantially undisputed. It appears that in January, 1906, Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, the owner in fee simple of a tract of land in the town of Albay, part of which is in dispute in this action, began proceedings in the Court of Land Registration for the registration of its title thereto under the provisions of Act No. 496. In June, 1906., said company sold a portion of the land thus undergoing registration to Salustiano Zubeldia, whose estate is represented by the defendant Cecilio Imaz as administrator. By an oversight, however, said company failed to amend the proceedings before the Court of Land Registration so as to exclude from the land described therein that portion thereof which it had sold to Zubeldia.

Immediately after the sale Zubeldia entered into possession of the land in question, made improvements thereon, and erected a stone wall along the dividing line between the lot sold to him and the rest of the property retained by Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, undergoing registration as aforesaid. The fact that Zubeldia had been in actual possession of the property in question from the time of its sale to him down to the time of his death, which occurred during the pendency of this action, was known to the plaintiff.

About three years after the sale to Zubeldia the Court of Land Registration, in the proceeding hereinbefore referred to, entered a decree in favor of Warner, Barness & Co., Limited, registering its title to the tract of land described in the application, including therein the land sold to Zubeldia, the fact of the sale to him, as we have already said, having been overlooked by the parties to said proceeding.

In July, 1911, G. M. Laing, the agent of Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, in Albay, acting in behalf of the company, agreed, by a proper instrument in writing, to sell to the plaintiff in this case, for the sum of P3,000, the remainder of the tract of land from which Zubeldia’s lot had been sold. That this was the land actually sold and no other is certain. Laing testified that before executing the contract of sale to the plaintiff he stood him personally to inspect the land which he was buying and pointed out the boundaries thereof; that at that time the land sold to Zubeldia some four years before was entirely cut off from the rest of the land by a stone wall. Laing pointed out the wall as being the limit of the land under consideration, saying, "I took him there and showed him the walls, advising him that the part we desired to sell him all that contained within the walls on the land."cralaw virtua1aw library

A short time after the execution by Laing of the contract with the plaintiff, Juan T. Figueras, manager of Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, and in representation of said company, executed a conveyance of the land in question to the plaintiff, taking the description of the land set out in the conveyance from the description of the property as registered in the Court of Land Registration. On account of the fact, however, that the sale to Zubeldia had been overlooked in the proceedings for the registration of title, the description in the conveyance executed by Figueras on behalf of the company included not only the land sold to plaintiff but also the land sold four years before to Zubeldia. Plaintiff’s conveyance was duly delivered to him and, upon its presentation to the registrar of deeds of Albay, a certificate of the title was issued to him under the provisions of Act No. 496.

In November 1911 plaintiff made a demand upon Zubeldia for the possession of the property then occupied by him, the same being, as we have said, included in the description in the conveyance received by him from Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited. The demand for possession having been refused, plaintiff commenced this action in December, 1911, against Zubeldia. The latter obtained an order of the Court of First Instance for the inclusion of Warner, Barnes, & Co., Limited, as a party defendant, and said company is the real defendant in the case.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the owner of the land occupied by Zubeldia. The answer denies this and alleges that the inclusion of the Zubeldia lot in plaintiff’s conveyance was due to a mutual mistake, and asks that the court make a correction of the record by the exclusion of the Zubeldia property from plaintiff’s conveyance and the records thereof. The judgment of the court granted the relief prayed in the answer.

We have no doubt from the evidence in this case that the plaintiff knew, at the time the contract of the sale was executed, as well as when the conveyance was made, that Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, did not intend to sell him the land which it had already sold to Zubeldia about four years before; and that his purchase was restricted to the land adjoining that sold to Zubeldia and separated therefrom by a stone wall which, in large part, inclosed the lands sold to and then occupied by Zubeldia.

The plaintiff relies for a reversal of the judgment upon the proposition that a Torres title is absolutely indefeasible and that as he has a certificate of title showing from the description therein that he is the owner of the lands occupied by Zubeldia, such title cannot be successfully resisted by the defendants herein.

There might be some force in this declaration if the litigation were between the plaintiff and Zubeldia alone, and the plaintiff were an innocent purchaser for value. Undoubtedly, so far as an innocent purchaser for value is concerned, the decree of registration of the Court of Land Registration cut off the title of Zubeldia to the land in question and left him with naked possession alone. But, as between plaintiff and Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, he is not an innocent purchaser for value; indeed, he is not a purchaser at all. As we have said, it is substantially undisputed that Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, and the plaintiff agreed, the one to sell and the other to buy, a certain parcel of land, with definite boundaries, perfectly visible on inspection, which lands and the boundaries thereof were shown to the purchaser by the seller and were recognized and accepted by him as the boundaries of the land which he proposed to buy. In other words, the minds of the parties met upon the purchase and sale of a given, definite parcel of land. By a mistake, an oversight, there crept into the instrument by which it was sought to make the proposed sale effective a description which included not only the land which the parties had agreed upon as the subject matter of their contract but also an additional piece of land which was not within the contemplation either party at the time the contract of sale was made. As between Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, and the plaintiff, therefore, the latter got nothing by a reason of the mistake which the company made in the description of the land sold. Immediately on discovering the error Warner, Barner & Co., Limited, could have brought an action to correct the conveyance and make it represent the real intention of the parties. As between them no question as to the indefeasibility of a Torrens title could arise. Such an action could have been maintained at any time while property remained in the hands of the purchaser. The peculiar force of a Torrens title would have been brought into play only when the purchaser had sold to an innocent third person for value the lands described in his conveyance.

Warner, Barnes, & Co., Limited, being a party to this action, and the land still remaining in the hands of the purchaser, and plaintiff herein, Warner, Barnes, & Co., Limited, may, on behalf of Zubeldia, or his successors in interest, exercise the same rights and pursue the same remedies which it could have exercised and pursued if it had been plaintiff in an action to correct the description in the conveyance by which the property was transferred to the plaintiff. There having been a mutual mistake between Warner, Barnes, & Co., Limited, and the plaintiff in this case in the execution of the conveyance in question, that mistake can be corrected in the action before us, the defendant, Warner, Barnes, & Co., Limited, having presented in its answer facts sufficient for such affirmative relief and such relief having been prayed affirmatively therein. That is precisely what the learned trial court did, and we are of the opinion that it acted correctly.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Arellano, C.J., Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

March-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9267 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GERVASIO GUMARANG ET AL.,

    027 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9291 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CAMILA CUNANAN

    027 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 8254 March 3, 1914 - MARIANO GONZAGA ET AL. v. FELISA GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 8913 March 3, 1914 - NELLIE LOUISE COOK v. J. MCMICKING

    027 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9201 March 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO SUAN

    027 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 8223 March 4, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAINAGA

    027 Phil 18


    027 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 8429-27 March 7, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL.

    027 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 8662 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES BESUÑA

    027 Phil 39


    027 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 8983 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO EDPALINA

    027 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 9066 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES

    027 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 7946 March 9, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. SATURNINA RIZAL

    027 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 8227 March 9, 1914 - ANTONIO M. JIMENEZ v. FIDEL REYES

    027 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 8325 March 10, 1914 - C. B. WILLIAMS v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    027 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 8927 March 10, 1914 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. MARIA IGNACIA USON ET AT.

    027 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9147 March 10, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO LAMADRID ET AL.

    027 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 8603 March 13, 1914 - SEVERINO CORNISTA v. SEVERA TICSON

    027 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 8984 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LABIAL

    027 Phil 82

  • G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO VAQUILAR

    027 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 8748 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SANTOS P. PALMA

    027 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 8931 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARQUI

    027 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 8971 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO BAUA

    027 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 9006 March 14, 1914 - JOSE ANTONIO GASCON ENRIQUEZ v. A.D. GIBBS

    027 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 9059 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO

    027 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 9099 March 14, 1914 - J. MCMICKING v. SPRUNGLI & CO. ET AL.

    027 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 9169 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PANTELEON MARIANO ET AL.

    027 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 9348 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERO MANTE

    027 Phil 134


    027 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 8140 March 16, 1914 - FORTUNATO GASPAR v. ANACLETO QUINADARA

    027 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 8851 March 16, 1914 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.,

    027 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8200 March 17, 1914 - LEONARDO LUCIDO v. GELASIO CALUPITAN ET AL.

    027 Phil 148

  • Special proceeding March 17, 1914 - IN RE: EUGENIO DE LARA

    027 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 7333 March 18, 1914 - DEMETRIO ARCENAS v. ESTANISLAO LASERNA

    027 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 7790 March 19, 1914 - EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO v. MCKAY & ZOELLER

    027 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 8235 March 19, 1914 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. LEANDRA MANARANG

    027 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 8414 March 19,1914


    027 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8998 March 19, 1914 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

    027 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 9307 March 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9098 March 20, 1914 - JOSE M. GONZALEZ v. PERCY M. MOIR

    027 Phil 256

  • Special proceeding March 21, 1914 - IN RE: LUICIANO DE LA ROSA

    027 Phil 258


    027 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 9302 March 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON DUNGCA

    027 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 6960 March 23, 1914 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    027 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 7909 March 24, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ISABEL RAMIREZ

    027 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 8385 March 24, 1914 - LUCIO ALGARRA v. SIXTO SANDEJAS

    027 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 8314 March 25, 1914 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY COMPANY

    027 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 8461 March 25, 1914 - RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO v. CECILIO IMAZ

    027 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 9124 March 25, 1914 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    027 Phil 319

  • Special Proceeding March 25, 1914 - IN RE: EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA

    027 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 7721 March 25, 1914 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. GREGORIO YULO

    034 Phil 978

  • G.R. No. 7420 March 25, 1914 - NAZARIO CABALLO ET AL. v. CIPRIANO DANDOY ET. AL.

    027 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7762 March 25, 1914 - BEHN v. JOSE MCMICKING

    027 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 7593 March 27, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE M. IGPUARA

    027 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 7647 March 27, 1914 - DOMINGO CALUYA v. LUCIA DOMINGO

    027 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7670 March 28, 1914 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 8051 March 28, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MADRIGAL ET AL.

    027 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 9010 March 28, 1914 - J. H. CHAPMAN v. JAMES M. UNDERWOOD

    027 Phil 374

  • G.R. Nos. 9619 & 9620 March 28, 1914 - NGO YAO TIT EL AL. v. SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 7270 March 29, 1914 - GREGORIO JIMENEZ ET AL. v. PASCUALA LOZADA ET AL.

    027 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 7287 & 7288 March 29, 1914 - PEDRO MONTIERO v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA

    027 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 7896 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MCMICKING v. CRISANTO LICHAUGO ET AL.

    027 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 8313 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MA. Y. DE ALDECOA v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL.

    027 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 8362 March 30, 1914 - JOSE PEREZ PASTOR v. PEDRO NOEL ET AL.

    027 Phil 393


    027 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 8478 March 30, 1914 - LUIS ESPERANZA v. ANDREA CATINDING

    027 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 8527 March 30, 1914 - WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. GEO. N. HURD

    027 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 8579 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO

    027 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 8654 March 30, 1914 - EUGENIO RESOLME ET AL. v. ROMAN LAZO

    027 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 8689 March 30, 1914 - LIBRADO MANAS ET AL. v. MARIA RAFAEL

    027 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 8781 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER DICHAO

    027 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 8785 March 30, 1914 - UY ALOC ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING ET AL.

    027 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 9178 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE LASTIMOSA

    027 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 9217 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MARTINEZ

    027 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 9294 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO SANCHEZ

    027 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 9329 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO AGUAS

    027 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 9397 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE VAYSON

    027 Phil 447