Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1915 > October 1915 Decisions > G.R. No. 9615 October 14, 1915

VICENTE GOLINGKO v. BRUNO MONJARDIN

031 Phil 643:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 9615. October 14, 1915. ]

VICENTE GOLINGKO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRUNO MONJARDIN, Defendant-Appellee.

Domingo Imperial for Appellant.

Ceferino M. Villareal for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. VENDOR AND PURCHASER; PRESUMPTION OF FRAUD; EVIDENCE. — In the absence of an allegation of fraud in the complaint, the plaintiff will not be permitted to prove fraud, if proper objection is made. While there may be presumption of fraud, arising from the nature and character of the sale of real estate, yet it is a rebuttable presumption, and it may be shown that the sale was made for a valuable consideration and in good faith.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


The purpose of the present action was to obtain possession of a small tract or parcel of land which is particularly described in paragraph 2 of the complaint. The plaintiff prays for the possession of the land, as owner, together with the sum of P200, as damages for the illegal detention thereof. The plaintiff claims that he is the owner of the land in question by virtue of the fact that he purchased the same at sheriff’s sale, under an execution against the original owners, on the 16th of June, 1911. The defendant claims that he is the owner of the land in question by virtue of a deed of sale executed and delivered to him by the original owners, on the 18th of May, 1911.

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the Honorable Percy M. Moir, judge, found that the defendant was the owner of the land in question and rendered a judgment relieving him from all liability under the complaint.

From that judgment the plaintiff appealed to this court.

From an examination of the record, we think the following facts are proved by a large preponderance of the evidence:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That some time prior to the 18th of May, 1911, an action was commenced in the court of the justice of the peace of the municipality of Malinao, by Chino Co Singo against Quirino Austero and his wife, Januaria Ciencia, for a sum of money.

Second. That on the 18th of May, 1911, the said justice of the peace rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in said cause and against the defendants, for said sum of money.

Third. That an execution was issued upon said judgment and was placed in the hands of the sheriff who, at public auction on the 16th of June, 1911, sold to the plaintiff herein the land in question, for the sum of P244.18.

Fourth. That the original owners (Quirino Austero and his wife, Januaria Ciencia) not having redeemed the land in question within a period of twelve months, said sheriff, on the 7th of August, 1912, issued to the plaintiff herein a certificate of sale.

Fifth. That on the 18th of May, 1911, Januaria Ciencia, together with her husband, Quirino Austero, sold to the defendant herein the land in question for the purpose of paying a debt which the defendant herein held against them. The deed of sale was executed and delivered on the 18th of May, 1911. The same was acknowledged before a notary public on the 12th of October, 1911.

Sixth. That at the time of the sale of the land in question at public auction, on the 16th of June, 1911, the sheriff was notified that the land did not belong to the said Quirino Austero and Januaria Ciencia, and that the same had been sold to the defendant herein, Bruno Monjardin.

Seventh. That at the time of the sale to the defendant herein (May 18, 1911) the said Quirino Austero and his wife, Januaria Ciencia, were the owners of other property.

Eighth. That on the 18th of May, 1911, at the time the land in question was sold by Quirino Austero and his wife, Januaria Ciencia, to the defendant herein, the former were legally indebted to the latter in the sum of P800, and that the sale of the land was made for the purpose of paying said indebtedness.

The plaintiff-appellant alleges that the lower court committed an error in deciding that the sale from Quirino Austero and Januaria Ciencia to the defendant herein was not a fraudulent sale. In reply to that contention, it may be said, in addition to the argument presented by the appellee in his brief, that the plaintiff neither alleged nor attempted to prove fraud, in relation to the transfer of the land in question. Of course, in the absence of an allegation of fraud in the complaint, the plaintiff could not prove it if proper objection were made. While perhaps there may be a presumption of fraud (art. 1297, Civil Code) arising from the nature and character of the transfer or sale, yet, nevertheless, it is a rebuttable presumption and it may be shown that the same was made for a valuable consideration and in good faith. Granting that the appellant properly alleged fraud, we are of the opinion that even in that case, the proof adduced by the defendant shows, beyond question, that the sale was a bona fide sale and that Qurino Austero and Januaria Ciencia had other property, free from encumbrance, subject to execution.

In view of all of the facts of the record and considering that the defendant was a purchaser in good faith, for a valuable consideration, of the land in question, and considering that he was a purchaser prior to the purchase of the plaintiff and considering that he entered into the possession of the land under and by virtue of said purchase, we are of the opinion and so hold that the judgment of the lower court should be and is hereby affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Araullo, 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-1915 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9166 October 1, 1915

    CHAN YICK SAM v. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OF THE CITY OF MLA.

    031 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. 10172 October 1, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. CASIANO BANZUELA, ET AL

    031 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 10470 October 1, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. FILEMON BAYUTAS

    031 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 8936 October 2, 1915

    CONSUELO LEGARDA v. N. M. SALEEBY

    031 Phil 590

  • G.R. No. 10340 October 2, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN ASUNCION

    031 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 9980 October 6, 1915

    GREGORIO ESCARIO v. ANTERO REGIS, ET AL

    031 Phil 618

  • G.R. No. 9694 October 7, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. EPIFANIO E. GABRIEL

    031 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. 10698 October 7, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. P. D. GARCES

    031 Phil 637

  • G.R. No. 9430 October 11, 1915

    SY YOC v. CHIEF OF POLICE OF THE CITY OF MLA.

    031 Phil 640

  • G.R. No. 9615 October 14, 1915

    VICENTE GOLINGKO v. BRUNO MONJARDIN

    031 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 8373 October 15, 1915

    KUENZLE & STREIFF v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    031 Phil 646

  • G.R. No. 9807 October 15, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. SO HAO KA

    031 Phil 649

  • G.R. Nos. 10053 & 10055 October 19, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO CLARAVALL, ET AL.

    031 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 10628 October 19, 1915

    JOHN R. SCHULTZ v. PEDRO CONCEPCION, ET AL.

    032 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10737 October 19, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. REMIGIO ARANIL

    032 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 9982 October 20, 1915

    MARGARITA GANZON v. MARIA LIMSON

    032 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. 10266 October 20, 1915

    MARGARITA VALENZUELA v. PEDRO UNSON

    032 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 10503 October 20, 1915

    IRINEO DEL ROSARIO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 22

  • G.R. No. 10576 October 20, 1915

    LEE JUA v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil25cralaw:red

  • G.R. No. 10733 October 20, 1915

    TIN LIO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. 10858 October 20, 1915

    PEDRO M. DUARTE v. WALTER H. DADE

    032 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. 9692 October 21, 1915

    PEDRO TIAMSON v. MAGNO TIAMSON

    032 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. 9969 October 26, 1915

    MODESTA BELTRAN v. FELICIANA DORIANO

    032 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. 9921 October 26, 1915

    JOSE VELASCO v. ROSENBERG’S, INC.

    032 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 10386 October 26, 1915

    TE CHIN BOO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 10699 October 26, 1915

    TAN LIN JO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. 10815 October 26, 1915

    AMADO SING JING TALENTO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 10076 October 28, 1915

    CITY OF MANILA v. FERNANDA FELISA COMALES, ET AL.

    032 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. 10788 October 28, 1915

    VICENTE GÑILO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. 10828 October 28, 1915

    CANG KAI GUAN v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 10790 October 29, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. SIMON TAN CORTESO

    032 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 10102 October 30, 1915

    C. F. ARBENZ v. OTTO GMUR

    032 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 10673 October 30, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. BARTOLOME CH. VELOSO

    032 Phil 126