Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > March 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16601 March 24, 1965 - SOLEDAD L. DE MIRAFLORES v. JOSE Y. HILADO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16601. March 24, 1965.]

SOLEDAD L. DE MIRAFLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSE Y. HILADO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Romeo C. Gonzaga, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Cirilo Abrasia and Roberto Ong for Defendants-Appellees.

Jose Y. Hilado in his own behalf as Defendant-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. SALE OF SUGAR QUOTA; DUTY OF VENDORS TO DO EVERYTHING NECESSARY FOR REGISTRATION OF TRANSFER. — The vendors of sugar quotas are in duty bound under their contracts of sale to do everything requisite and necessary for the registration of the transfer of said quotas to the vendee in the books and records of the sugar central concerned.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


This is an appeal taken by Soledad L. de Miraflores from an order issued by the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental on December 5, 1959 in Civil Case No. 5499 dismissing her complaint against Jose Y. Hilado and Cirilo Abrasia, on the ground of lack of cause of action.

Appellant commenced the present action against appellees for specific performance and damages. The complaint alleged that appellees Jose Y. Hilado and Cirilo Abrasia, on December 9, 1954 and March 29, 1955, respectively, sold to appellant sugar quota rights adhered to the Victorias Milling Co., Inc. (Plantation Audit No. 28-324) as evidenced by the written contracts Annexes "A" and "B" attached to the complaint; that when appellant presented said documents to the Victorias Milling Co., Inc. for registration, the latter refused to register them on the ground that the vendors had failed to register their rights to the sugar quotas subject matter of the sales with the Register of Deeds as required by Executive Order No. 873; that on June 1, 1959, appellant, thru counsel, wrote appellee Hilado informing him of the refusal and requesting him to perfect his right to the sugar quota so that she could in turn register the same in her name (Annex "D" of the complaint); that as a result of appellees’ failure to effect the transfer of the sugar quota rights in favor of appellant despite her letter of demand, the latter had to file the complaint to compel them to comply with their obligations under the contracts mentioned heretofore and to pay her damages and attorney’s fees.

Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of (1) lack of cause of action and (2) non-joinder of indispensable parties.

On December 5, 1959, the lower court issued the appealed order dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action, ruling as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"En la demanda no se alega que los demandados, por medio de los contratos Anexos ‘A’ y ‘B’ se hayan obligado a efectuar el registro del trespaso en los archivos de la Victorias Milling Co., Inc. por lo que no existen terminos habiles para concluir de que los demandados hayan infringido los terminos de los repitodos contratos. De hecho, tal condicion no se ha incluido en ninguno de los contratos."cralaw virtua1aw library

The issue before Us is merely whether the allegations of the complaint constitute a sufficient cause of action against appellees.

The record discloses that in Civil Case No. 2150 of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental entitled "Tupas v. Soledad Miraflores, Et. Al. involving Lot No. 492 of the Cadastral Survey of Cadiz, Negros Occidental, covered by TCT No. T-857 (T-18669), otherwise known as Hda. "Banco", Plantation Audit No. 28-324 of the milling district of Victorias, Negros Occidental, appellee Hilado, as counsel for plaintiff therein Marcos Tupas, had earned, by way of contingent attorney’s fees, 30% of the sugar quota allocated to said hacienda in the amount of 1,665.68 piculs and 30 hectares thereof as evidenced by a contract entitled "Settlement of Attorney’s Fees" executed by and between Hilado and Tupas on June 20, 1952 in the City of Bacolod, and acknowledged before Atty. Gerardo Pandan, Notary Public for said city, as Doc. No. 431, page No. 90, Book No. X, series of 1952 of his Notarial Register. Hilado sold one-half of his rights and interests in said sugar quota (832.84 piculs) to his co-appellee Atty. Cirilo Abrasia on June 21, 1952 by means of a public document duly acknowledged before Notary Public Cesar S. Nessia on November 18, 1954, as Doc. No. 213, Page 44, Book 1 of his Notarial Register. By virtue of the contract Annex "A", Hilado sold the remaining one-half of his sugar quota to appellant Miraflores (832.84 piculs) for the sum of P9,994.08. On March 29, 1955, appellee Abrasia sold to appellant the sugar quota of 832.84 piculs which he had purchased from Hilado.

Upon the facts alleged in the complaint, it appears to be appellant Hilado’s duty to have the document thru which he acquired the sugar quota of 1,665.68 piculs from Marcos Tupas, properly registered, together with the Deed of Sale of one-half thereof he executed in favor of his co-appellee and the Deed of Sale he executed in favor of appellant over the remaining one-half. Similarly, it appears to be the clear duty of Abrasia to cause the registration of the Deed of Sale he executed in favor of appellant conveying to her that portion of Hilado’s quota he had previously acquired from the latter. As appellant’s vendors, both appellees are in duty bound under their respective contracts, to do everything requisite and necessary to accomplish the registration of the transfer of said quota to appellant in the books and records of the Central, for, without such registration, her rights may be jeopardized. As, according to the complaint and the document attached thereto, appellees have refused to comply with their aforesaid duty, we are of the opinion, and so hold that said pleading states a sufficient cause of action against them and in favor of Appellant.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is set aside and the record in this case is remanded below for further proceedings.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon J.P., and Zaldivar, 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-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-24022 March 3, 1965 - ILOILO PALAY AND CORN PLANTERS ASSO., INC., ET AL. v. JOSE Y. FELICIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16601 March 24, 1965 - SOLEDAD L. DE MIRAFLORES v. JOSE Y. HILADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20509 March 24, 1965 - LESME BAQUILOD, ET AL. v. MARCELO M. BOBADILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18351 March 26, 1965 - CHOY KING TEE v. EMILIO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-18753 March 26, 1965 - VICENTE B. TEOTICO v. ANA DEL VAL CHAN

  • G.R. No. L-18799 March 26, 1965 - JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. HERMINIO MARAVILLA

  • G.R. No. L-18359 March 26, 1965 - CALIXTO DUQUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19582 March 26, 1965 - UY CHING HO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16773 March 30, 1965 - UP-TO-DATE SHIRT FACTORY v. SSS

  • G.R. No. L-19694 March 30, 1965 - IN RE: LEONIDAS S. TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20013 March 30, 1965 - IN RE: DALMACIO CHENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • A.C. No. 205 March 31, 1965 - CANDIDO SAN LUIS v. BENJAMIN B. PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-13719 March 31, 1965 - FILEMON PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14526 March 31, 1965 - ABOITIZ SHIPPING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. CITY OF CEBU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14678 March 31, 1965 - JUAN SERRANO v. FEDERICO MIAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16441 March 31, 1965 - ALFREDO BOLLOZOS v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16744 March 31, 1965 - SIMPLICIO ALINSONORIN v. MATEO M. CANONOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17798 March 31, 1965 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18536 March 31, 1965 - JOSE B. AZNAR v. RAFAEL YAPDIANGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18725 March 31, 1965 - JOSE MA. LEDESMA v. FELIX VILLASEÑOR

  • G.R. No. L-18761 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMIRIL ASMAWIL

  • G.R. No. L-19142 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGRECIO LUMAYAG

  • G.R. No. L-19482 March 31, 1965 - ZOSIMO D. UY v. JOSE R. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19868 March 31, 1965 - IGMIDIO CANOVAS v. BATANGAS TRANS. CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20003-05 March 31, 1965 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. GAVINO SISICAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20063 March 31, 1965 - PHIL. RESOURCES DEV. CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20093 March 31, 1965 - CAPT. J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO, ET AL. v. MACARIO PERALTA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20151 March 31, 1965 - IN RE: LEE NG LE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20305 March 31, 1965 - IN RE: ANG TEE YEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20455 March 31, 1965 - NAZARIO CATUIZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20504 March 31, 1965 - NATIONAL DEV. CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20558 March 31, 1965 - IN RE: MELITON O. GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21076 March 31, 1965 - WONG WOO YIU v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21597 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEANDRO C. MONTE

  • G.R. No. L-22354 March 31, 1965 - KWOK KAM LIEN, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-22537 March 31, 1965 - EUSEBIO TAÑALA v. MARIANO LEGASPI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22779 March 31, 1965 - HADJI LOMONTOD MACASUNDIG v. DIRUGUNGUN MACALANGAN

  • G.R. No. L-23537 March 31, 1965 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23721 March 31, 1965 - R. MARINO CORPUS v. MIGUEL CUADERNO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24191 March 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE R. ADOLFO

  • G.R. No. L-20063 March 31, 1965 - PHIL. RESOURCES DEV. CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.