Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1951 > July 1951 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3540 July 30, 1951 - FILOMENO B. CASSION v. BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO

089 Phil 560:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3540. July 30, 1951.]

FILOMENO B. CASSION and LORENZA B. CASSION, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO and ANGEL C. CABATINGAN, Defendants. BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO, Defendant-Appellant.

Honorato S. Hermosisima for Appellees.

Ramon B. de los Reyes for Appellant.

SYLLABUS


1. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; SPECIAL LAW CONTROLS OVER A GENERAL ONE. — With or without an express enactment it is a familiar rule of statutory construction that to the extent of any necessary repugnancy between a general and a special law or provision, the latter will control the former, without regard to the respective dates of passage.

2. ID.; ID.; ON HOMESTEADS, SECTION 117, ACT NO. 2874 PREVAILS OVER SECTION 32, ACT NO. 2938 AND SECTION 6, ACT NO. 3135. — Homesteads constitute an exception to Acts Nos. 2938 and 3135; as to homesteads, Act No. 2874 is controlling.


D E C I S I O N


TUASON, J.:


On April 8, 1932, the plaintiffs mortgaged two parcels of land, which they had acquired as homesteads, to the Philippine National Bank to secure a promissory note for P600. The mortgagors having defaulted, the Bank extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage and was the highest bidder at the ensuing auction sale, held on November 19, 1934. Over one year afterward, the Bank sold the two parcels to Angel C. Cabatingan, after which, but before the expiration of five years from the date of the auction sale, the plaintiffs offered to repurchase the lands and the Bank turned down the offer. The upshot was this suit against the Bank and Cabatingan.

Upon the above facts, the court below entered judgment for the plaintiffs and the Philippine National Bank appealed, but not Cabatingan, although he had filed a "counterclaim" and a "cross- complaint" against his co-defendant.

The appellant rests its case on Act No. 2938, which amended Act No. 2712 creating the Philippine National Bank, and Act No. 3135, which authorizes extrajudicial foreclosures of mortgage. Section 32 and Section 6 respectively of these Acts allow the debtor only one year to redeem property sold under a mortgage foreclosure whether judicial or extrajudicial. On the other hand, the plaintiffs rely on Section 117 of Act No. 2874, known as the Public Land Act, as amended, which provides that "every conveyance of land acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions, when proper, shall be subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal heirs for a period of five years from the date of the conveyance."cralaw virtua1aw library

The simple and sole question for decision is, which of these conflicting provisions ought to prevail in this case? This is the only question on which the Bank joined issue with the plaintiffs in its answer and to which we need address ourselves. Moreover, the other assignment of error are nonfundamental and not well taken.

Section 288 of Act No. 190 laid down the rule in the construction of two or more conflicting statutes or instruments, by providing that "when a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former," and that "a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it." Section 60 of Rule 123 of the Rules of Court reproduced Section 288 of the former Code of Civil Procedure governing the interpretation of conflicting instruments but omitted that part which refers to conflicting laws. It is not necessary to express an opinion whether the Rules of Court repealed the omitted part; for with or without an express enactment it is a familiar rule of statutory construction that to the extent of any necessary repugnancy between a general and a special law or provision, the latter will control the former; without regard to the respective dates of passage. (Lichauco & Co. v. Apostol and Corpus, 44 Phil. 138; 59 C. J. 1056; 1057; Crawford, The Construction of Statutes, section 230.)

Now then, it seems plain that section 32 of Act No. 2938 and section 6 of Act No. 3135 are wider in scope or more comprehensive than Section 117 of Act No. 2874. They comprehend all kinds of property brought within the relations and circumstances provided thereby, while section 117 of Act No. 2874 relates to a specific class of property. Stated otherwise, the property on which the Philippine National Bank’s Charter and Act No. 3135 are operative is any property mortgaged to the Bank, whereas, as already stated, Act No. 2874 by its own terms is operative only on lands acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions. Section 32 of Act No. 2938 and Section 6 of Act No. 3135 standing alone would include homestead or free-patented lands, while Section 117 of Act No. 2874 would not embrace any property other than that mentioned therein even if Acts Nos. 2938 and 3135 did not exist. To use the words of Act No. 190 and the Rules of Court, Act No. 2874 manifests "a particular intent," the intent to promote the spread of small land ownership and the preservation of public land grants in the hands of the underprivileged for whose benefit they are specially intended and whose welfare is a special concern of the State.

We therefore hold that Act No. 2874 is controlling, that homestead constitute an exception of Acts No. 2938 and 3135, and that the appealed decision should be affirmed. It is so ordered with costs against the Appellant.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, 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






July-1951 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3084 July 6, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO SANCHEZ

    089 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-3885 July 9, 1951 - FELISA BASA VDA. DE CONCEPCION v. JOSE R. SANTOS

    089 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. L-3757 July 12, 1951 - CARLOS A. MONTILLA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    089 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-4465 July 12, 1951 - CHINESE FLOUR IMPORTERS ASSN. v. PRICE STABILIZATION BOARD

    089 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-3433 July 16, 1951 - LEON BORLAZA v. GREGORIO RAMOS

    089 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-4403 July 17, 1951 - WISE & COMPANY v. PRICE STABILIZATION CORP.

    089 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-3018 July 18, 1951 - IN RE: ROBERT CU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-3323 July 18, 1951 - IN RE: JACK J. BERMONT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3900 July 18, 1951 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LEON SAMIA

    089 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. L-3233 July 23, 1951 - IN RE: UY CHIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-3278 July 28, 1951 - TEODORO TANDA v. NARCISO N. ALDAYA

    089 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. L-2654 July 24, 1951 - EUGENIO LIRIO v. PHILIPPINE POWER AND DEV. CO.

    089 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-3400 July 24, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIPRIANO CAMAY

    089 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-4706 July 24, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCASIO VILLASCO

    089 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. L-3622 July 26, 1951 - INTERPROVINCIAL AUTOBUS CO. v. FELIPE C. LUBATON

    089 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. L-3647 July 26, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTASIO ESCARRO

    089 Phil 520

  • G.R. Nos. L-2953 & L-4033 July 27, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO ASESOR Y JONES

    089 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. L-3397 July 27, 1951 - BASILIO AQUINO v. JOSE G. SANVICTORES

    089 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. L-3928 July 27, 1951 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO YSIP

    089 Phil 535

  • G.R. No. L-4205 July 27, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO METRAN

    089 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. L-3467 July 30, 1951 - BASILIA VALDEZ v. MARCELO PINEDA

    089 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. L-3479 July 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUFRACIO IRINCO

    089 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. L-3540 July 30, 1951 - FILOMENO B. CASSION v. BANCO NACIONAL FILIPINO

    089 Phil 560

  • G.R. No. L-3733 July 30, 1951 - STANDARD COCONUT CORPORATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    089 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-3981 July 30, 1951 - PHIL. ALIEN PROPERTY ADM. v. OSCAR CASTELO

    089 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. L-4583 July 30, 1951 - CONCHITA COINCO v. RAMON R. SAN JOSE

    089 Phil 578

  • G.R. Nos. L-2152 & L-2153 July 31, 1951 - SIMEONA N. DE CASTRO v. JOSE G. LONGA

    089 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. L-2432 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO DALIGDIG

    089 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. L-2578 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LADISLAO BACOLOD

    089 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-2611 July 31, 1951 - ALEJANDRO KEYSER TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-3439 July 31, 1951 - ALEJANDRO SAMSON v. AGAPITO B. ANDAL

    089 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-3455 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO ULIP

    089 Phil 629

  • G.R. No. L-3519 July 31, 1951 - TOMASA AREVALO v. ROBERTO A. BARRETO

    089 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-3597 July 31, 1951 - TEODORO LANDIG v. U. S. COMMERCIAL CO.

    089 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-3601 July 31, 1951 - UY HOO AND COMPANY v. JOAQUIN C. YUSECO

    089 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. L-3766 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELICERIO TAN

    089 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-3775 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HOSPICIO LABATA

    089 Phil 661

  • G.R. No. L-3822 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO FELICIANO

    089 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. L-4019 July 31, 1951 - TOMAS VILLANUEVA v. TENANCY LAW ENFORCEMENT DIV.

    089 Phil 668

  • G.R. Nos. L-4517-20 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO ROMERO

    089 Phil 672

  • G.R. No. L-4681 July 31, 1951 - MARCELA DE BORJA VDA. DE TORRES v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    089 Phil 678