Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1925 > March 1925 Decisions > G.R. No. 23236 March 2, 1925 - CHO CHUN CHAC v. MAXIMO F. GARCIA

047 Phil 530:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 23236. March 2, 1925. ]

CHO CHUN CHAC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAXIMO F. GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

J. R. Serra for plaintiff as Appellant.

Padilla, Trenas & Magalona for defendant as appellant and appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTS; AUTHENTICITY. — Where the signature of the plaintiff in the document in question is identical with those indisputably his in other documents introduced in evidence, and the incumbrance created in said document upon a land belonging to him was noted on the corresponding certificate of title by the registrar of deeds, there being no proof that said document was taken away unlawfully from his possession, and the notary, who authorized the document, and the witnesses thereto testified that the plaintiff did sign it in their presence, the authenticity of the document in question is undeniable.

2. JUDGMENT; PRONOUNCEMENT AS TO THIRD PERSON. — In a judgment no pronouncement can be made as to a third person not included as party in the action.

3. POSSESSION AS TENANT; DUTY TO PAY RENT. — Where the defendant is in possession of an estate belonging to the plaintiff, he is under obligation to pay rent for the occupation of the property at a reasonable rate.


D E C I S I O N


VILLAMOR, J. :


The record before us shows that the defendant Maximo F. Garcia, according to transfer’s certificate of title No. 1507, Exhibit 5, was the owner of a property known as "Varadero de Iloilo;" that on November 28, 1921, he sold said property to Dña. Trinidad Ledesma de Arroyo in the sum of P16,000 with right of repurchase for the term of six months from the date of the document Exhibit L, which might be extended two months, that is, up to July, 1922; that when the period for redemption was about the expire, said defendant sent a telegram to the plaintiff who was then in Manila, asking for money with which to pay the interest due to Dña. Trinidad Ledesma de Arroyo, in order to prevent the consolidation of her title; that the plaintiff, on July 26, 1922, as appears in Exhibit K, redeemed for himself the aforesaid "Varandero de Iloilo," and to that end, certificate of title No. 1985 was issued in favor on the plaintiff Cho Chun Chac under date of August 1, 1922, covering said property which certificate is Exhibit J. That on July 30, 1922, the plaintiff gave his brother, the defendant herein, an option to repurchase from the plaintiff or his heirs and representatives the "Varadero de Iloilo" for the sum of P17,280, for the term of three years to expire on December 31, 1925, as stated in Exhibit G, that is to say, a right of option in favor of the defendant was noted on the back of transfer certificate of title No. 1985, and a notice of lis pendens filed on November 9, 1923.

The plaintiff in his first cause of action alleges himself to be the owner of the personal property described in paragraph 2 of the complaint, and that the defendant was withholding them as mere lessee since August 1, 1922, and has not paid the monthly rent of P200, which amounted to P2,800 on the date of the filing of the complaint; and in the second cause of action the plaintiff alleges that on the back of transfer certificate of title No. 1985 it was noted that said property was subject to an option to repurchase for the sum of P17,280, and that said notation must be cancelled on the ground that the aforesaid deed of option registered as an incumbrance on the back of the aforesaid transfer certificate of title is false, the signature of the plaintiff having been forged; an that he has not executed the aforesaid deed of option in favor of the defendant Maximo F. Garcia.

The defendant in his answer made a general and specific denial of each and every allegation of the complaint and as special defense alleges that he is the owner of the property described in paragraph 2 of the complaint, and that his title appears on transfer certificate of title No. 1507; that on November 28, 1921, the aforesaid property was by him sold with right of repurchase to Dña. Trinidad Ledesma de Arroyo for the sum of P16,000, the period of redemption to expire on January 31, 1922, although the redemption to expire on January 31, 1922, although same may be extended up to July 31st of the same year; that before the expiration of the period of redemption, the plaintiff, finding himself without means for repurchasing said property, proposed to, and requested, his brother, the herein plaintiff, to repurchase said property from Dña. Trinidad Ledesma de Arroyo, and, once the redemption was effected, that the defendant be granted an option to reacquire the same afterwards to which proposition and request the plaintiff acceded; that pursuant to said agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the former made the redemption of said property on July 26, 1922, and on the 30th of the same month he executed a document granting the defendant an option to repurchase said property within a period which was to expire on December 31, 1925, for the sum of P17,280; that about the month of August, 1922, the plaintiff, disregarding the deed of option of July 30th of the same year and without knowledge of the defendant, negotiated and obtained from the register of deeds of this province the transfer of said property in his name by cancelling the certificate of title of the defendant; that the defendant is, and has been, in possession of the property in question since he acquired it without having made any contract with anybody for the lease, occupation, and enjoyment of said property.

Upon the allegations of the complaint and the answer and the evidence introduced by the parties, the trial court rendered judgment (a) declaring that the "Varadero de Iloilo" belonged to the plaintiff Cho Chun Chac and that said plaintiff must be restored in the possession of said property; (b) sentencing the defendant Maximo F. Garcia to pay the plaintiff the sum of P160 per month for the use and occupation of the "Varadero de Iloilo," from August 1, 1922, until the possession of the "Varadero de Iloilo" was delivered to said plaintiff; (c) holding the signature of the plaintiff on Exhibit G to be authentic and consequently that the document Exhibit G, the deed of option, was valid an effective and that therefore the defendant has the right to repurchase from the plaintiff the "Varadero de Iloilo" for the sum of P17,280, said right of option being enforceable up to December 31, 1925.

Both parties appealed from this judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff on account of the lower court having declared authentic the signature of the plaintiff on Exhibit G and therefore the defendant had the right to repurchase from the plaintiff the "Varadero de Iloilo" until December 31, 1925; and on account of said court having held that at any rate such right of redemption belong to the partnership of Cho Chun Yet & Co. in the hypothesis that the document Exhibit G was authentic. The defendant appealed because he was sentenced by the trial court to pay the plaintiff the sum of P160 per month for the use and occupation of the property in question from August 1, 1922, until the same was delivered to the plaintiff.

The fundamental question in this case hinges on the authenticity of the signature of the plaintiff on Exhibit G, that is, the contract of option in favor of the defendant.

We have made a careful examination of the signature of the plaintiff Cho Chun Chac on the aforesaid document Exhibit G and its duplicate Exhibit I; we have compared said signatures between themselves and with the indisputable signatures of the plaintiff on the check Exhibit D and on Exhibit E, as well as the photographic pictures of said signatures on Exhibits H and I, and we have not found any essential difference in said signatures, taking into consideration the manner in which the letters were traced, the inclination of the letters, and the ending of the stroke of the letter C in the surname Chac. There is such identity in the tracing of the letters Ch in Cho Chun Chac in the said six signatures, that there can be no doubt that the same written by the plaintiff Cho Chun Chac. Moreover, if the document Exhibit G and its duplicate Exhibit I were false, as the plaintiff claims, the fact cannot be explained how the defendant succeeded in having said option noted on the back of the transfer certificate of title of the plaintiff, without having obtained from the latter said certificate and presented it to the register of deeds. There is no allegation nor proof whatever that the defendant is guilty of having fraudulently stolen said transfer certificate No. 1985.

On the other hand, who authorized the document Exhibit G and its duplicate Exhibit I, and the witnesses subscribing the same, all affirmed that the plaintiff signed these documents in the presence of said witnesses. Taking into account all the circumstances surrounding the execution of the document Exhibit G and its duplicate Exhibit I, we are of the opinion and so hold that said signatures are authentic signatures of the plaintiff, and this being so, it is evident that the defendant has the right of repurchase the aforesaid property up to December 31, 1925, as we held by the trial court, upon the payment of the sum of P17,280.

As to the allegation of the plaintiff-appellant that at all events the right of option belongs to the partnership of Cho Chung Yet & Co., instead of to the defendant Maximo F. Garcia, it must be noted that plaintiff’s counsel in his memorandum and oral argument vigorously insists on his second assignment of error. In answer to the arguments of the plaintiff-appellant, it is sufficient to observe that, no parties having appeared in this case except the plaintiff Cho Chun Chac and the defendant Maximo F. Garcia, there is absolutely no reason for making any pronouncement regarding other persons or entities, as the plaintiff contends.

As to the appeal of the defendant, it appears that on July 31, 1922, his right to redeem the property from Dña. Trinidad Ledesma de Arroyo was extinguished, and his right to repurchase it now depends only upon the contract of option evidenced by Exhibit G, the true owner being plaintiff from August 1, 1922, according to certificate of title No. 1985. Therefore if the defendant is in possession of the property in question, it is clear that he must indemnify the owner for the use and occupation of said property, and we believe that the amount of P160 per month fixed by the trial court is reasonable, especially if it is taken into account that in Exhibit L, that is, in the contract of sale with right of repurchase executed by the defendant in favor of Dña. Trinidad Ledesma de Arroyo, it appears, in one of its clauses, "that in case the vendor should return the stipulated amount of P16,000 and the rents at the rate of P160 within the period of redemption, the purchaser shall execute a deed of resale."cralaw virtua1aw library

We find the judgment appealed from to be in accordance with law, and it must be, as is hereby, affirmed without special finding as to costs. So ordered.

Johnson, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, 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






March-1925 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 22682 March 2, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PEDRO PEREJA

    047 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. 23236 March 2, 1925 - CHO CHUN CHAC v. MAXIMO F. GARCIA

    047 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. 22945 March 3, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOVITA V. BUENVIAJE

    047 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. 23226 March 4, 1925 - VICENTE SEGOVIA v. PEDRO NOEL

    047 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. 23061 March 6, 1925 - VICENTE ALDANESE v. CANUTO SALUTILLO, ET AL.

    047 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. 23153 March 7, 1925 - AGATON C. IBAÑEZ v. PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    047 Phil 554

  • G.R. Nos. 23189-23191 March 9, 1925 - ANDRES EUSEBIO, ET AL. v. PROCESO AGUAS

    047 Phil 567

  • G.R. Nos. 22828 & 22829 March 10, 1925 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO ABAD, ET AL.

    047 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 23244 March 10, 1925 - IRINEO FACUNDO v. JUAN POSADAS

    047 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 23241 March 14, 1925 - HENRY FLEISCHER v. BOTICA NOLASCO CO.

    047 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. 23181 March 16, 1925 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GABRIELA ANDREA R. DE COSTER, ET AL.

    047 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 22042 March 17, 1925 - JUAN JAMORA v. JOSE JARANILLA

    047 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 22948 March 17, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FAUSTO V. CARLOS

    047 Phil 626

  • G.R. Nos. 23112-23114 March 17, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO REYES

    047 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 23126 March 17, 1925 - JOSE P. TINSAY v. JOVITA YUSAY, ET AL

    047 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 23172 March 17, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CELESTINO TAVERA, ET AL.

    047 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 23608 March 17, 1925 - SALMON, DECTER & CO. v. TIMOTEO UNSON

    047 Phil 649

  • G.R. Nos. 22209 & 22210 March 18, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS DURANTE, ET AL.

    047 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 23175 March 18, 1925 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. JOAQUIN GARCIA, ET AL

    047 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 23392 March 18, 1925 - REMEDIOS JACINTO v. SANTIAGO MERCADO

    047 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 23700 March 18, 1925 - BLOSSOM & CO. v. MANILA GAS CORPORATION, ET AL

    047 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 22822 March 19, 1925 - MIGUEL SOLER v. SEBASTIAN S. BASTIDA, ET AL

    047 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 23469 March 19, 1925 - J. A. WOLFSON v. SIDNEY C. SCHWARZKOPF

    047 Phil 680

  • G.R. No. 23109 March 20, 1925 - SANTIAGO GOCHANGCO, ET AL. v. R. L. DEAN

    047 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 23154 March 23, 1925 - TAN BOC v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    047 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. 23892 March 23, 1925 - RAMON R. PAPA v. MUN. BOARD OF THE CITY OF MLA.

    047 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. 23921 March 30, 1925 - DOMINADOR GOMEZ v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    047 Phil 717