Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1938 > December 1938 Decisions > G.R. No. 46385 December 14, 1938 - POTENCIANO CORREA, ET AL. v. MARCELO BUÑOL, ET AL.

066 Phil 719:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 46385. December 14, 1938.]

POTENCIANO CORREA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARCELO BUÑOL, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Atanasio Ampig, for Appellants.

D. Lutero, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. LAND REGISTRATION; ANSWER; SUBSEQUENT ACTION FOR RETURN OF POSSESSION AND RESCISSION OF CONTRACT OF SALE. — When, in the cadastral proceedings of Sta. Barbara, defendants and appellants applied for the registration in their name of the land in question, plaintiffs and appellees could have timely opposed the registration applied for by alleging that they had bought the land under pacto de retro. Neither the fact that plaintiffs had filed their answer nor the reason for its overruling if one had been filed, appears in the record for the reason that the land was adjudicated to the defendants. Whether or not an answer to the application for registration had been filed, the fact remains that the title to the same having been decreed in favor of defendants, herein appellants, plaintiffs could not bring an action either for the return of possession of the land or for the rescission of the contract of sale with pacto de retro.

2. ID.; ID.; REVIEW OF DECREE OF REGISTRATION; ACTION FOR DAMAGES. — The sole legal remedy left to plaintiffs and appellees after the lapse of one year for the review of the decree of registration was not to demand the price of the sale, as they did in their complaint, but damages from defendants and appellants or from the assurance fund, as the case may be, if they can prove that the latter had obtained the registration of the land through fraud, without negligence on the part of plaintiffs themselves.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, J.:


This is an appeal taken by defendants from the decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on January 7, 1936 sentencing them to pay plaintiffs the sum of P210, plus 24 sacks of palay or their market value, with legal interest from July 8, 1935, the date of the filing of the complaint.

By means of a deed executed on June 28, 1927 defendant Marcelo Buñol and his deceased wife, Manuel Mainar, when the latter was still living, sold under pacto de retro to plaintiff Potenciano Correa and his late wife Remedios Paniza a parcel of land located in the sitio of Ygdapung of the suburb of Lucena, municipality of Santa Barbara, Iloilo, for the sum of P210, Philippine currency, and twenty-four sacks of palay each containing seventy-five liters. From the date of the execution of the deed of sale plaintiff Potenciano Correa and his late wife had been in possession of the land up to May, 1933 when defendant Marcelo Buñol and his children by his deceased wife Manuela Mainar, named Alfredo, Carmen, Leoncio, Consejo, and Sofronio, all surnamed Buñol, who have also been made defendants, took possession of the same without first repurchasing it by paying the price of P210 and delivering twenty-four sacks of palay.

"Defendants," says the judgment appealed from, "on their part contend that the obligation set forth in Exhibit A was usurious inasmuch as the principal sum was P10, the twenty-four sacks of palay being the annual interest on the same; that on account of said obligation defendants have already paid seventy sacks of palay to plaintiffs; and lastly that the land which is the subject matter of Exhibit A was the exclusive property of Manuela Mainar, and that if Marcelo Buñol signed the same it was only for the purpose of giving his marital consent."cralaw virtua1aw library

After finding "that the evidence for plaintiffs was stronger than that for defendants," the court rendered the judgment appealed from.

The appeal is based on the two following questions of law which are assigned as errors of the lower court:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. That the facts alleged in the complaint are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

"2. That the justice of the peace court of Sta. Barbara where the complaint in this case was first filed did not have jurisdiction to try the case, and, therefore, the Court of First Instance to which the case was brought on appeal likewise did not have jurisdiction to try it."cralaw virtua1aw library

Defendants and appellants contend that, according to the foregoing facts, plaintiffs and appellees could bring only one of these two actions: That for recovery of possession and that for rescission of the contract with pacto de retro executed in favor of the latter. Defendants allege that plaintiffs can not ask for the return of the price of the sale as they do in their complaint, without first having asked for the rescission of the contract of sale with pacto de retro. The first assignment of error is based on this contention. In support of the second assignment of error, it is alleged that the justice of the peace court with which the complaint was filed, did not acquire jurisdiction because none of the two actions which plaintiffs and appellees should have brought fell within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court so that the Court of First Instance neither acquired appellate jurisdiction over the case.

As may be seen, the second assigned error is founded on mere assumptions, not on facts, for the truth was that the complaint filed in the justice of the peace court sought the return of the sum of P210 and twenty-four sacks of palay. This action, by its amount, was within the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court.

As to the first alleged error, it must be remembered that, according to plaintiffs and appellees, "the land described in paragraph 4 of the complaint and known as lot No. 7377 of the cadastre of Sta. Barbara, was, through fraud and deceit, adjudicated on November 23. 1931 by the Court of First Instance of Iloilo to the defendants named Alfredo, Carmen, Consejo, Leoncio, and Sofronio, all surnamed Buñol. Relying on the decree of title issued in their favor, which became indefeasible for the reason that the period of one year within which it may be reviewed had already elapsed, defendants took possession of said land in May, 1933."cralaw virtua1aw library

According to what has just been quoted, when, in the cadastral proceedings of Sta. Barbara, defendants and appellants applied for the registration in their name of the land in question, plaintiffs and appellees could have timely opposed the registration applied for by alleging that they had bought the land under pacto de retro. Neither the fact that plaintiffs had filed their answer nor the reason for its overruling if one had been filed, appears in the record for the reason that, as has been stated, the land was adjudicated to the defendants. Whether or not an answer to the application for registration had been filed, the fact remains that the title to the same having been decreed in favor of defendants, herein appellants, plaintiffs could not thereafter ask either for the return of possession of the land or for the rescission of the contract of sale with pacto de retro.

The sole legal remedy left to plaintiffs and appellees after the lapse of one year for the review of the decree of registration was not to demand the price of the sale, as they did in their complaint, but damages from defendants and appellants or from the assurance fund, it they could prove that the latter had obtained the registration of the land through fraud, without negligence on the part of plaintiffs themselves. (Section 38 of Act No. 496 as amended by section 3 of Act No. 3621 and section 1 of Act No. 3630; sections 55 and 101 of same Land Registration Act; Estrellado and Alcantara v. Martinez, 48 Phil., 256.)

In view of the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is reversed, without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz and Laurel, 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






December-1938 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 45097 December 1, 1938 - JOSE EMPEMANO, ET AL. v. GREGORIO CABUNIAG, ET AL.

    066 Phil 665

  • G.R. No. 44826 December 2, 1938 - TOMASA OSORIO v. ANGELA MONTENEGRO VIUDA DE PAPA

    066 Phil 669

  • G.R. No. 44832 December 3, 1938 - PHILIPPINE CORK & INSULATION CO. v. ISIDORO DE SANTOS

    066 Phil 673

  • G.R. No. 46324 December 3, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM MACGAVIN

    066 Phil 677

  • G.R. Nos. 46353-46355 December 5, 1938 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION B. PEÑAS

    066 Phil 682

  • G.R. No. 46020 December 8, 1938 - CONCEPCION MURILLO v. ALFREDO MENDOZA

    066 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. 46208 December 12, 1938 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. PARSONS HARDWARE COMPANY

    066 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. 43622 December 13, 1938 - LOPEZ SUGAR CENTRAL MILL CO., INC. v. MAGDALENA GONZAGA VIUDA DE CUAYCONG, ET AL.

    066 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. 46294 December 13, 1938 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JOSE T. ESPINOSA

    066 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. 46385 December 14, 1938 - POTENCIANO CORREA, ET AL. v. MARCELO BUÑOL, ET AL.

    066 Phil 719

  • G.R. No. 44451 December 16, 1938 - VICENTE L. LEGARDA v. LA PREVISORA FILIPINA

    066 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. 46295 December 16, 1938 - BARDWILL BROS. v. JOSE G. GENEROSO, ET AL.

    066 Phil 736

  • G.R. No. 46345 December 16, 1938 - CASIMIRO TAMPARONG v. ROQUE V. NERY

    066 Phil 742

  • G.R. No. 46378 December 17, 1938 - MANILA GAS CORPORATION v. ALFREDO B. CALUPITAN

    066 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 44142 December 24, 1938 - VICENTE NOBLE v. CITY OF MANILA

    067 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 44204 December 24, 1938 - ENRIQUE v. JOSE M. KERR, ET AL.

    067 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 44510 December 24, 1938 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. JOSE ESTEVA, ET AL.

    067 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. 44579 December 24, 1938 - JUAN E. TUASON v. LA PREVISORA FILIPINA

    067 Phil 36

  • G.R. Nos. 46064 & 46089 December 24, 1938 - RAFAEL REGIS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    067 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 46323 December 24, 1938 - PEDRO R. ARTECHE v. ANGEL ROSALES, ET AL.

    067 Phil 48