Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1951 > May 1951 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3537 May 21, 1951 - SISENANDO ARGUIETA, ET AL. v. VICENTE CORCUERA, ET AL.

088 Phil 777:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-3537. May 21, 1951.]

SISENANDO ARGUIETA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VICENTE CORCUERA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Baldomero S. Luque, for Appellants.

Noli Ma. Cortes and Fidel F. Corcuera, for appellee Vicente Corcuera.

Augusto Francisco and Julian T. Ocampo for appellee Norberto Lupisan.

Sisenando Palarca, for appellee Bureau of Lands.

SYLLABUS


1. EXECUTIVE ORDERS NOS. 138 and 228; FRIAR LANDS. — Executive Orders Nos. 138 and 228 promulgated by the Philippine Executive Commission expressly permitting delinquent purchasers of friar land whose contracts and already been cancelled to make repurchase under certain conditions, including full payment of their outstanding obligations, are not of political complexion and therefore are good and valid.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.:


The Court of Appeals, by resolution, forwarded this case to us because the assignments of error center around purely legal questions. The litigation involves the alleged right of appellants to purchase from the Government certain parcels of friar lands in Cavite.

On or about October 21, 1927, the Director of Lands acting under Act No. 1120 executed in favor of Carlos T. Tirona and Vicente Corcuera a contract of sale of lot No. 2062 of the Santa Cruz de Malabon Friar Lands Estate in Cavite for the sum of P7,716 payable in 15 annual installments (Sales Certificate No. 2991).

On April 28, 1930 Carlos T. Tirona with the approval of the Director of Lands conveyed all his interest in the lot to his co-vendee Vicente Corcuera, who continued cultivating and improving the lot. But for their failure to pay several annual installments, the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce cancelled the sales contract, on March 3, 1937, and instructed the Director of Lands to proceed with the sale of the land in accordance with Commonwealth Act 32. Plans were accordingly made subdividing the parcel into smaller lots occupied and cultivated by some of plaintiffs-appellants, who, being tenants of Corcuera continued occupying the land even after his contract had been "cancelled", and filed applications for the purchase of the portions respectively occupied by them.

However upon petitions to reconsider, the Secretary of Agriculture suspended on July 29, 1937, the effects of the cancellation of the sale certificate, and also the sale of the lots, and ordered a re-investigation of the case. Upon timely motions for reconsideration to reinstate the sale, investigations were conducted on the question whether the applicants were bona fide occupants and not mere dummies, and whether Corcuera continued his occupation thru said occupants who were his tenants; but no definite decision had been reached, when in the year 1943 the Philippine Executive Commission promulgated Executive Orders Nos. 138 and 228 expressly permitting delinquent purchasers of friar lands whose contracts had already been cancelled to make repurchase under certain conditions, including full payment of their outstanding obligations.

Thereafter, on January 18, 1944, the Director of Lands decided to promulgate no final ruling on the re-investigations as to whether the cancellation had been properly ordered and on the respective rights of the claimants, inasmuch as even if the cancellation be given full effect, Vicente Corcuera had the right to repurchase and had invoked such right under the new executive orders. Corcuera, fulfilled all the other conditions imposed by the orders including the payment of the whole purchase price. Wherefore he was given by the Minister of Agriculture and National Resources of the so-called Republic of the Philippines a final deed of conveyance, dated April 5, 1944, upon the strength of which he secured from the Register of Deeds of Cavite his transfer certificate of title No. A-1308. And sometime in July 1945 he transferred the land for value to his co-defendant Norberto Lupisan, who in turn duly obtained a Torrens certificate in his own name, Exhibit 11.

On February 10, 1947 the eight plaintiffs brought suit in the Court of First Instance of Cavite praying for annulment of the above certificates of title and for decrees commanding the Director of Lands to recognize their preferential rights to purchase the lots hereinabove mentioned. Defeated in that court, they appealed in due time. Their stand may be stated briefly in the following propositions:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. Upon cancellation of the sale certificate in 1937 the lot acquired the status of friar lands "still undisposed of" within the meaning of Commonwealth Act No. 32 that granted to actual bona fide occupants preferential rights to purchase.

2. The plaintiffs being such occupants acquired a vested right of which they could not be deprived even by subsequent legislation.

3. Executive Orders Nos. 138 and 288 of the Philippine Executive Commission were null and void, and the sale of Corcuera pursuant to said orders was also null and void.

I. The first proposition assumes that the cancellation of the sales certificate No. 2991 in 1937 became definite and final. But on July 29, 1937 the Secretary suspended the effects thereof, and the Bureau of Lands did not consider the matter closed, entertaining several petitions for reconsideration even as late as January, 1944. It may not, therefore, be said that the cancellation permanently changed the status of the lot to render it disposable under Commonwealth Act No. 32.

II. Now, as the land did not revert to the mass of undisposed friar lands the petitioners may not assert any vested right to purchase it, because by their own allegations such vested right is predicated upon their assumption that Corcuera’s contract of sale had been definitely set aside. Besides, there was an unresolved issue on the question whether they were bona fide occupants, and not mere "dummies."cralaw virtua1aw library

Anyway the rights they may invoke must be subordinated to the question whether the disposition made in accordance with the orders of the Philippine Executive Commission may now be overthrown, for the reason, expounded by plaintiffs, that such orders, and the conveyance were totally null and void. The appellants maintain that only the "de jure" Philippine Government had the right to dispose of the lands.

III. We have said thru Mr. Justice Feria in Co Kim Cham v. Valdez 1, 41 Official Gazette, 769 that the Philippine Executive Commission and the Republic of the Philippines during the Japanese occupation were de facto governments and that all acts and proceedings of their legislative, executive and judicial departments except those of political complexion were "good and valid" even after the liberation or reoccupation of the Philippines by the American and Filipino Forces." Id. p. 785.

There was nothing political in the executive orders mentioned. They were enacted for the benefit of private individuals, purchasers of friar lands. In fact in Etorma v. Ravelo, 44 Off. Gaz., 2247 we ruled that the Acts authorizing and regulating the grant of free patents to occupants or possessors of public lands are municipal laws devoid of political complexion. Wherefore the deed of conveyance to Corcuera must be held valid at this time.

It should be observed that in this instance the Director of Lands during the Japanese occupation did nothing more than to carry out the pre-war contract of the Philippine Government. There could be no legitimate objection to that. And the payment of the purchase price to the de facto government could not be lawfully differentiated from the payment to such government of pre-war tax liabilities, the validity of which none so far has disputed.

The appellants quote Oppenheim International Law to the effect that "if the occupant has sold immovable State property, such property may afterwards be claimed from the purchaser, whoever he is, without compensation." Supposing that is the standing doctrine — we have not gone into the matter — nevertheless it would be natural to expect that the claim for restoration will normally be made by the State, the Philippine Government, not by private individuals, like the plaintiffs. Far from claiming for restoration or annulment, the Government thru the Director of Lands, sustains the legitimacy of the sale to Corcuera.

Aside from the preceding considerations there is a further equitable, if not legal, objection to plaintiffs’ petition: the lot has been transferred to the other defendant, Norberto Lupisan, who must be presumed to be a purchaser in good faith. True, the plaintiffs point out to some suspicious circumstances. But granting for the sake of argument that Lupisan did not act bona fide there is a second stumbling block: According to annotations in Exhibit 11, on October 16, 1945 a part of the lot was sold to Ricardo C. Arca; and on October 17, 1945 the remaining portion was mortgaged to Domingo Pablo for the sum of P10,000. Of this sale and of this encumbrance the plaintiffs allege exactly nothing. Said two persons are not even parties to this litigation.

It follows from the foregoing exposition that the plaintiffs may not be granted the relief they demand. Judgment affirmed with costs.

Paras, C.J., Feria, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.

Footnote

1. 75 Phil., 113, 371.




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






May-1951 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4638 May 8, 1951 - TOMAS L. CABILI, ET AL. v. VICENTE FRANCISCO, ET AL.

    088 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. L-2926 May 11, 1951 - PAZ JARIN, ET AL. v. DANIEL SARINAS, ET AL.

    088 Phil 660

  • G.R. No. L-3254 May 11, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO NATE, ET AL.

    088 Phil 663

  • G.R. No. L-2260 May 14, 1951 - HONORATO DE VERA v. JOSE C. FERNANDEZ

    088 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-2843 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. BENITO GUHITING, ET AL.

    088 Phil 672

  • G.R. Nos. L-3112 & L-3113 May 14, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. SEVERINO NOLASCO

    088 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. L-2236 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BLAS CRUZ

    088 Phil 684

  • G.R. No. L-3047 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUADALUPE ZAPATA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 688

  • G.R. Nos. L-3248 & L-3249 May 16, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO AGUILAR

    088 Phil 693

  • G.R. No. L-3321 May 16, 1951 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. PAZ E. DE LA CRUZ

    088 Phil 699

  • G.R. No. L-3824 May 16, 1951 - BENJAMIN v. HON. MARIANO C. MELENDRES

    088 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. L-2464 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO AGUILA

    088 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. L-2755 May 18, 1951 - JOHNNY CHAUSINTEK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    088 Phil 717

  • G.R. No. L-3345 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS S. TAPANG

    088 Phil 721

  • G.R. Nos. L-3386 & L-3387 May 18, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO IBALI

    088 Phil 724

  • G.R. No. L-3497 May 18, 1951 - VALENTINA CUEVAS v. PILAR ACHACOSO

    088 Phil 730

  • G.R. No. L-3987 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE P. FLORES, ET AL.

    088 Phil 741

  • G.R. No. L-4459 May 18, 1951 - JOHNLO TRADING COMPANY v. JOSE C. ZULUETA

    088 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-2311 May 21, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN NADURATA

    088 Phil 754

  • G.R. No. L-2525 May 21, 1951 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS, ET AL. v. TOMAS DE VERA

    088 Phil 762

  • G.R. No. L-3099 May 21, 1951 - CIPRIANA GONZALES v. PURIFICACION, ET AL.

    088 Phil 770

  • G.R. No. L-3325 May 21, 1951 - FELIX BARRACA v. SOCORRO ZAYCO

    088 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. L-3537 May 21, 1951 - SISENANDO ARGUIETA, ET AL. v. VICENTE CORCUERA, ET AL.

    088 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-2155 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKADATO ALAMADA

    089 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-1687 May 23, 1951 - CIPRIANO KING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-2834 May 23, 1951 - ENCARNACION CAPARAS v. NICASIO YATCO

    089 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. L-2956 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELEUTERIO ICARO

    089 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-2998 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN FLAVIER

    089 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-3002 May 23, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARTIN

    089 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. L-3324 May 23, 1951 - QUINCIANO ISAAC v. TACHUAN LEONG

    089 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-3430 May 23, 1951 - PAZ E. SIGUION v. GO TECSON

    089 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-3495 May 23, 1951 - ISIDORE FALEK v. NATIVIDAD GANDIONGCO DE SINGSON

    089 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. L-3549 May 23, 1951 - BERNARDO P. TIMBOL v. MARIA KABAKAW

    089 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-3561 May 23, 1951 - CESAR REYES v. AGRIPINO ZABALLERO

    089 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-3621 May 23, 1951 - DOMINGO T. DIKIT v. RAMON A. YCASIANO

    089 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. L-3694 May 23, 1951 - LIBERTY CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY CO. v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    089 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-2294 May 25, 1951 - FILIPINAS COMPAÑIA DE SEGUROS v. CHRISTERN

    089 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. L-1594 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. HONORIO CABILING

    089 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. L-1967 May 28, 1951 - MATILDE MENCIANO v. PAZ NERI SAN JOSE

    089 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-2645 May 28, 1951 - IN RE: ALFONSO R. LIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-2695 May 28, 1951 - FERMIN TABANDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    089 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. L-2841 May 28, 1951 - PINDAÑGAN AGRICULTURAL Co. v. LUDOVICO ESTRADA

    089 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2847 May 28, 1951 - MAXIMINO VALDEZ v. MAGDALENA MENDOZA

    089 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-2959 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO ALMAZORA

    089 Phil 87

  • G.R. Nos. L-3267 & L-3268 May 28, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE SABADO

    089 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. L-3339 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. CRISPIN RODILLAS

    089 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-3490 May 28, 1951 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FILEMON CARLON

    089 Phil 105

  • G.R. Nos. L-4053-55 May 28, 1951 - LA PAZ ICE PLANT & COLD STORAGE CO. v. COMISION DE UTILIDADES PUBLICAS

    089 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. L-4143 May 28, 1951 - SIXTO PAÑGILINAN v. EMILIO PEÑA

    089 Phil 122

  • G.R. No. L-1743 May 29, 1951 - DOMINADOR NICOLAS v. VICENTA MATIAS

    089 Phil 126

  • G.R. No. L-1162 May 30, 1951 - IN RE: ROSARIO DIA v. JUAN ZUÑIGA

    089 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. L-1364 May 30, 1951 - LOO SOO and VY LIONG LEE v. DONATO OSORIO

    089 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. L-1866 May 30, 1951 - QUIRINO RANJO v. LEONITA PAYOMO

    089 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-2100 May 30, 1951 - GERARDO VASQUEZ v. PATROCINIO GARCIA

    089 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. L-2263 May 30, 1951 - PAZ Y. OCAMPO v. CONRADO POTENCIANO

    089 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. L-2474 May 30, 1951 - MARIANO ANDAL v. EDUVIGIS MACARAIG

    089 Phil 165

  • G.R. No. L-2552 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO DIWA

    089 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. L-2586 May 30, 1951 - ANITA TOMACRUZ v. BEATRIZ B. VALERO

    089 Phil 177

  • G.R. No. L-2664 May 30, 1951 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GAN TAN

    089 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-2715 May 30, 1951 - TERESA ALBERTO v. CASIMIRO MANANGHALA

    089 Phil 188

  • G.R. No. L-2819 May 30, 1951 - MARCIANA ESCOTO v. BENITO M. ARCILLA

    089 Phil 199

  • G.R. No. L-2872 May 30, 1951 - MELECIO ARCEO v. ANDRES VARELA

    089 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. L-3004 May 30, 1951 - BENITA TOMIAS v. CONRADO TOMIAS

    089 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. L-3411 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENGRACIO ARLATINCO

    089 Phil 220

  • G.R. Nos. L-3491-93 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO HAMIANA

    089 Phil 225

  • G.R. No. L-3510 May 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL MAGNAYE

    089 Phil 233

  • G.R. No. L-4179 May 30, 1951 - CRISANTO DE BORJA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION

    089 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. L-4663 May 30, 1951 - FERDINAND E. MARCOS v. CHIEF OF STAFF

    089 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. L-4670 May 30, 1951 - NICANOR MARONILLA-SEVA v. LORENZO B. ANDRADA

    089 Phil 252