Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1922 > March 1922 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16878 March 9, 1922 - SERAPIO BANAAD v. ALEJANDRA CASTANEDA

043 Phil 163:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16878. March 9, 1922. ]

SERAPIO BANAAD, Appellee, v. ALEJANDRA CASTANEDA, objector-appellant.

Marcial M. Azada and Pascual B. Azanza for Appellant.

Sumulong & Estrada for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


LAND REGISTRATION. — Held: That, under the facts stated in the opinion, the evidence sufficiently supports the findings of the trial court, and there is nothing in the record to justify the conclusion that any of the errors assigned by the appellant to the judgment appealed from was committed.


D E C I S I O N


ROMUALDEZ, J. :


This is an application by the spouses Serapio Banaad and Alejandra Suarez for the registration of a parcel of land of about 13 1/2 hectares, described in the plan Exhibit A, situated in the barrio of Dagatan, municipality of Dolores, Province of Tayabas, which they claim to have purchased from Francisco Alcala y Felizmeno for P24,000.

Alejandra Castaneda objects to the application so far as the northeastern portion of the land is concerned on the ground that it had been donated to her by Francisco Alcala (the predecessor in interest of the applicant spouses) by reason of her marriage with Vicente Alcala, the son of the said Francisco Alcala.

After due proceedings, the court a quo dismissed the opposition and decreed the registration of all the land, with the improvements thereon, in the name of the spouses Serapio Banaad and Alejandra Suarez.

Alejandra Castaneda brings now this appeal, assigning to the judgment of the lower court the following errors, to wit: Its failure to declare that the portion of land claimed by her is a part of the land donated to the claimant by her father-in-law, Francisco Alcala, because the area of the land sought to be registered exceeds that of the land sold by Francisco Alcala to the herein applicants; and the dismissal of the opposition of the Appellant.

The record shows that all the land the registration of which is applied for and a portion to the north thereof belonged to Francisco Alcala, who had obtained a document of ownership therefor as evidenced by Exhibit E.

Exhibit 1, dated April 23, 1915, evidences the fact that Francisco Alcala donated a portion of this land to Alejandra Castaneda by reason of her marriage. This document does not state the area of the land donated. It simply says that the land contains 350 fruit-bearing coconut trees and 350 bearing flowers.

On April 5, 1919, Francisco Alcala sold to the herein applicants a parcel of land of about 7 1/2 hectares, described as being contiguous to the land of the vendor and that the boundary was a line of live hedges. According to the deed this land is planted with 1,400 fruit-bearing coconut trees and 500 not bearing.

According to the preponderance of evidence the live hedges that served as boundary line are not between points 15-6-5-4-3-2, as the opponent would have us believe, but are in the line 16 or 7-8 or 17-1, that is to say, at the farthest northeastern part of the land described in plan Exhibit A. This circumstance alone is sufficient to make us conclude that the land claimed by the objector is not within that the registration of which is applied for in these proceedings.

The court a quo correctly decided this case as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In deciding the point at issue between the parties it should not be forgotten that the sale made by the deceased Francisco Alcala took place nearly four years after he had made the donation in favor of his daughter-in-law, Alejandra Castaneda. There is no reason for believing, gratuitously and without any satisfactory explanation, that the vendor, Francisco Alcala, had transferred to the Banaad spouses that portion now claimed by Alejandra Castaneda, supposing it to be true that this portion of land had been donated to her four years ago by the same person, as alleged by her. If the portion claimed by Alejandra Castaneda was part of the land donated to her, we would be forced to conclude that the deceased, Francisco Alcala, had revoked in part the donation that he had freely made to his daughter-in-law; however this hypothesis is untenable in view of the absence of any evidence showing that there was a cause or reason for so doing.

"The court’s attention was called to, and much stress has been laid upon, a circumstance appearing in Exhibit F, which is a document of compromise between Alejandra Castaneda, as the widow of the deceased Vicente Alcala, and one Enanata Rodel, the widow of the deceased Francisco Alcala. In the first paragraph of this document of compromise (page 3) it appears that the opponent waived all the rights and interests that she might have had in the lands sold by the deceased Francisco Alcala to the Banaad spouses and particularly in the land described in the application and plan Exhibit A, including the portion of land now claimed by her, and it was further agreed between the objector and Rodel that in the event that the land given to her by Francisco Alcala did not contain 700 coconut trees, Rodel and her coheirs would be obliged to assign and transfer to the objector sufficient situated in San Mateo so that the number of coconut tress may be the same as that existing on the land donated to her. If this document has any value at all, and the court believe that it has, it is undeniable that by virtue of said compromise the opponent Castaneda lost all grounds for objecting now to the registration of the lands described in the application and in the plan, because she had-waived expressly all her rights and interests over any portion thereof. The objector assailed the validity of Exhibit F alleging that in an interview had with Rodel, they mutually agreed to annul the said document. The evidence to this effect presented by the objector in support of her contention has not proven inclusively, in the opinion of the court, this allegation, and the preponderance of the evidence leads us to conclude that no such annulment was made and that said contract is still binding between the parties thereto." (Bill of exceptions, pages 13-15.)

We find the evidence sufficient to support the conclusions of the court a quo and there is nothing in the record tending to show that any of the errors assigned was committed.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed and the appellant is sentenced to pay the costs of both instances. So ordered.

Araullo, C J., Street, Malcolm, Avancena, Villamor, Ostrand, and Johns, 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-1922 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-17226 March 1, 1922 - L. S. MOON & CO. v. Honorable FRANCIS BURTON HARRISON

    043 Phil 27

  • G.R. No. L-17775 March 1, 1922 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO VEGA ET AL.

    043 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-18081 March 3, 1922 - IN RE: OF MORA ADONG v. CHEONG SENG GEE

    043 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. L-17493 March 4, 1922 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO PERFECTO, ET AL.

    043 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-17748 March 4, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GRACIANO L. CABRERA ET AL.

    043 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. L-17855 March 4, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GRACIANO L. CABRERA ET AL.

    043 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-17283 March 7, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SIXTO HERNANDEZ

    043 Phil 104

  • G.R. No. 17729 March 7, 1922 - L. P. FIEGE, ET AL. v. SMITH

    043 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-17584 March 8, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GREGORIO SANTIAGO

    043 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. L-17603 March 8, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ROSALIO PANALIGAN, ET AL.

    043 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-18699 March 8, 1922 - TAN CHICO v. Honorable PEDRO CONCEPCION

    043 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. L-15950 March 9, 1922 - CARLOS PALANCA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.

    043 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. L-16492 March 9, 1922 - E. MACIAS & Co. v. Warner

    043 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-16878 March 9, 1922 - SERAPIO BANAAD v. ALEJANDRA CASTANEDA

    043 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-17436 March 9, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. SERGIO MANZANILLA ET AL.

    043 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. L-18432 March 9, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. ISLANDS v. NICOLAS ENCARNACION

    043 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 18600 March 9, 1922 - B.E. JOHANNES v. Honorable GEORGE R. HARVEY

    043 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 16570 March 9, 1922 - SMITH, BELL & CO., LTD. v. VICENTE SOTELO MATTI

    044 Phil 874

  • G.R. No. 16869 March 13, 1922 - HEIRS OF ANTONIO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    044 Phil 885

  • G.R. No. L-17633 March 14, 1922 - CLARA W. GILMER v. L. HILLIARD

    043 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. L-17865 March 15, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CIPRIANA BUCSIT, ET AL.

    043 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-18056 March 16, 1922 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL R SEVILLA

    043 Phil 186

  • IN RE Attorney EUSEBIO TIONKO : March 17, 1922 - 043 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-17230 March 17, 1922 - JOSE VELASCO v. TAN LIUAN & CO.

    043 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. L-18054 March 18, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ARSENIO SUNGA Y REYES (alias) ARSENIO LOPEZ

    043 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 18240 March 18, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ENGRACIA CAPACIA

    043 Phil 207

  • IN RE: ANTONIO HORRILLENO : March 20, 1922 - 043 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-17866 March 20, 1922 - ANDREE C. CHEREAU v. ASUNCION FUENTEBELLA ET AL.

    043 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-18402 March 22, 1922 - CALIXTO BERBARI v. Honorable Carlos A. Honorable CARLOS A. IMPERIAL

    043 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-16924 March 23, 1922 - UNITED STATES v. Gregorio Perfecto

    043 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-17933 March 23, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ATANASIO NANQUIL

    043 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 17024 March 24, 1922 - DOMINGO BEARNEZA v. BALBINO DEQUILLA

    043 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. L-18203 March 27, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. TELESFORO DORADO, ET AL.

    043 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-17925 March 28, 1922 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. EVARISTO ABAYA

    043 Phil 247

  • G.R. No. L-17254 March 29, 1922 - CRISPULO VILLARUEL v. TAN KING

    043 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. L-18740 March 29, 1922 - WALTER E. OLSEN & CO. v. VICENTE ALDANESE

    043 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. L-16530 March 31, 1922 - MAMERTO LAUDICO, ET AL. v. MANUEL ARIAS RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

    043 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-18624 March 31, 1922 - GREGORIO MARQUEZ, ET AL. v. The Honorable BARTOLOME REVILLA

    043 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. L-18664 March 31, 1922 - MARIA GONZALEZ v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    043 Phil 277