Josefa De Jesus, Pilar De Jesus and Dolores De Jesus, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Santos Belarmino and Teodora Ochoa De Juliano, defendants-appellees, G.R. no. L-6665, June 30, 1954 [Supreme Court decisions]

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: Josefa De Jesus, Pilar De Jesus and Dolores De Jesus, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Santos Belarmino and Teodora Ochoa De Juliano, defendants-appellees, G.R. no. L-6665, June 30, 1954 [Supreme Court decisions]
Language: English
Source: XIX (10) October 31, 1954
Year: 1954
Subject: Land titles—Registration and transfer; Land tenure; Real property; Causes of actions; Appellate court – Calamba (Laguna); Appellate court – Calamba (Laguna); Philippines. Court of First Instance; De Jesus, Josefa; De Jesus, Pilar; De Jesus, Dolores; Belarmino, Santos; De Juliano, Teodora Ochoa
Rights
Abstract: The plaintiffs brought the case in the Court of First Instance of Laguna to recover a parcel of land claimed to have been erroneously included in the Transfer Certificate of title no. T-129 of the land records issued in the name of the defendant Santos Belarmino. The triangular portion of the lot bought by plaintiffs’ ancestors was erroneously included in the lot bought by one of the defendants, after having actual knowledge of such mistake, never claimed any right of ownership of the said lot until after the issuance of the certificate of title in their favor. The complaint was dismissed because of the sufficient basis tested by allegations of facts in complaint and facts alleged to constitute the cause of action.
Fulltext: for the illegal strike, and that said strike cannot in any way affect their present status as laborers or any demands by them either pe:nding or future. With this understanding, we decline to pass upon the legality or illegality of the str ike declared on March 12, 1952, against the cement company, regarding the same as immaterial, if not moot. ln view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs . Po,ms, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, A le:t Reyes, Bautista Angelo, Jugo, Labr<ulor, Conc11pcio11 and J.B. L. Reyes, J.J., concur. VIII Urbano Casillan, Pe!itior.er-Appellee, vs. Francisca "£'. Vda. De Espartero, et al., Oppositor-Appelants, No. L-6902, S eptember 16, 1954, RP,yes, A., J. LAND REGISTRATION; JURISDICTION OF LAND REGISTRATION COliP.T TO ORDER RECONVEYANCB · OF PROPERTY ERRONEOUSLY" REGISTERED IN ANOTHER'S NAME; REMEDY OF LANDOWNER. - The Court of Ffrst lnstance, in tht exercise of its jurisdiction as a land registration court, has no authority to order a 1·econveyance or a property erroneously registered in another's name. The remedy of the landowner in such a caflc should the time allowed for the 1·eopcning of the decree have ah·eady expired - is to bring an Ol'dinary action in the ordinary courts of justice for reconveyance, or for damages if the property has passed into the harld-; of an innocent purchaser for value. Mamt6l G. Ah·a.rado for the oppositors and appellants. Manuel G. Manzano for petitioner and appcllee. DECISION REYES, A., J.: On December 19, 1950, Urbano Casillan filed a verified petition in the Court of First Instance vf Cagayan in Cadastral Case Ncr . 26, Hecord No. 2, G.L.R . 0. No. 1390, alleging that he wl!:; the owner of Lot No. 13SO, filed a clai.m therefor in said case and paid all cadastral costs, but that by mi:stdi::e title was issued to Victorino Espartero, who never possessed or laid claim to t he said lot. Petitioner, therefor, prayed that "jn the interest of equity and unde!" Section 112 of Act 496," the oourt order the heirs of Vict.(lrino Espartero - the latter having already died - to reconvey the lot to the petitioner, or merely urder the correction of the certificate of title by substituting his name for that of Victo1·ino Espartero ns registered owner . Opposing the petition, the heirs of Victorino Espartero filed a motion to dismiss on the ground, among others, that section 112 of Act 496 did nC't authorize th2 reconveyance or substitution sought by petitioner; but the court declued the section applicable. And having found, after hearing, that !he lot belonged to petitioner and that title thereto was issued in the name of Victorino Espartero as a consequence of a clerical cnor in the preparation of the decree of registration, the court ordered the reconveyance prayed for. Prom this order, oppositors have appealed to this Court and or.e of the questions raised is that section 112 of Act 496 did not authorize the lower court to order such reconveyance. Stated another w:iy, appellants' position is that the Court of F'irst Instun..:t, in the exercise of it:; jurisdiction as a land re£"istrntion court, had no authority tCI order a reconveyance in the present cuse. The appeal thus rutses a qu~stion of jurisdiction. In view of um· decision in the case of Director of Lands vs. Hegistcr of Deeds et a l. , 49 Off. Gaz., No. 3, p. 935, appellants' contention must be upheld . In th!lt case, the court of land registration had confirmed title in the G<ivcrnm£nt of the Philippine Islands a nd the certificate of title put in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Acting on the µeti tion, the Court of F irst Iuhncc of Rizal issued the order pra yed for on the authority of sec:tion 112 of the Land Registration Act . But upon appeal to this Conrt, the Ol'der was reversed, this Court holding that the lower court, llS a land court, had no jurisdiction to issue such ordE:r, u the section ciUd did not apply to the c&.se. Elaborating on the att1pe of said section, this Court said: "Roughly, section 112, on which the Director of Lands relics and the order is planted, authorizes, in our opinion, only alterations which do not impair rights recorded in the decree, or alterations which, if they do prejudice such rights, are consented to by all the parties concerned, or alterations to correct obvious mistakes. By the very fact of its inddeasibillty, the Court of Land Registration after one yea r loses its com· petence to revoke or modify in a substantial manner a decree against the objection of any oi the parties adversely affectf'd. Section 112 itself givt s notice lhat it 'shall r.ot be constr ued to give the court authority to open the original decree of registration,' and section 38, which sanctions the opening of a decree within one year from the date of its entry, for fraud, provides that after that period 'every decree or certificate of title h~sued in accordance with this_ section shall be incont rovertible' . "Under the guise of correcting clerical errors, the procedure here followed and the appf'aled ordt!r were virtual revision and nullification of generation-old decree and certificate of title. Such procedure and such order str ike at the very foundation Clf the Torrens System of land recording laid and consecrated by the emphatic provisions of section 38 and 112 of the Lnnd Regis· tration Act, supra. In consorrnnce with the universally-recognized principles which undt!rlie Act No. 49G, the court may not, even if it is convinced that a clerical mistake was nmde, recall a certificate of title after the lupse of neurly 30 years from the date of its issuance, against the vigoi-ous objection of its holder. As was said in a similar but much weaker case than this CGovernment vs. J udge, {;tc ., 57 Phil., 500) ; 'To hold the.t the substitution of the name of a person, by subsequent rtec!"«', for the name or another person to whom a certificate of title was issued (five years before> in pursuance of a decree, effocts only a correction of a clerical error and that the cou1t had jurisdiction to do it, requires a greater stretch of the imagination than is permissible in a ccurt of justice.' 1Syllabus.l It should be Mticed that in that case, as in this case, the later decree 'was based on the hypothesis that the decree of MRy 14, 1925, contained a clerical erl"or and that the court had jul'isdiction to correct such erl"or in the manner afor<!said'. "The sole remedy of the land owner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's namf' is, after one year from the date of the decree, not to set aside the decree, as was done in the instant case, but, resnecting the decref' as inccntrovertible and no longer open to t·eview. t? bring an ordinary action in the ordinary court of justice for reconveyance or, if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value, for damages." In line with the ruling laid down in the case cited, the order herein appealed from must be, as it is hereby, revoked, without prejudice to the filing of an ordinary actiOn in the ordinary e<iurts of justice for reeonveyancc, or for damages if the property has passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser for value. Without costs. Paras, Pnblo, Bengzon, Padilla, llt011temoyor, J ugo, 8a11tista Angelo, Co11ceycion, and J.B. L. R f11/eB. J.J., concur . IX Josefa De Jesus, Pilar De JefllU and Dolores De Jen1.•, Pla.i7ttilfs-A'Ppellants, vs. Santos Belarmino and T eodora Ochoa V e Ju.lia1t.0. !Jefflndan·ts-Appellees, G. R. N o. L-6fi65, J tnte 30, 1954, Boutirla to a parcel of land situated in Ma labon, Rizal, but the correspontling decree and certificate of title were issued, not in the name of the Philippine Government, but in that of the municipality of ltfalabon. Years a fter, lhc Di rcclflr of Lands filed in the originai land registration case n JJCtition fo r an -order to liave the error corrected I. Angelo, J. · SALES; VENDEE WITH ACTUAL OR CON STRUCTIVE Octobc!" 31, 1954 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL KNOWLEDGE OF MISTAKE IN AREA OF LAND BOUGHT, NOT PURCHASER IN GOOD FAITH. - Where the triangular portion of the lot bought by plaintiffs' prede~ssors-in interest was errone.ously included in the lot bought by one of the defendants, and the latter, having actual or constructive knowledge of such mistake, never claimed any right of ownership or of possession of said portion until after the issuance of the certificate of title in their favor, they can not claim to be purchaser in good faith of the portion in question even if they had paid the consideration therefor with the sanction of the Bureau of Lands. 2. COMPLAINTS; DISMISSAL BY MOTION; SUFFICIENCY OF MOTION, TESTED BY ALLEGATIONS OF FACTS IN COMPLAINT; TEST OF SUFFICIENCY OF FACTS ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE CAUSE OF ACTION. - Where the complaint was dismissed not because of any evidence presented by the parties, or as a result of the trial on the merits, but merely on a motion to di~miss filed by the defendants, ~he 1mfficiency of the mution should be tested on the strenght of the allegations of facts contained in the coinplaint, and on no other. If these allegations show a cause of action, c-r furnish sufficient basis by which t.he complaint can be maiILtained, the complaint should not be dismis.sed regardless of the defenses that may be averred by the defendants. The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged m a complaint, to constitute a cause of action, is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer of said complaint. Nicolas Belmonte and Delfin A.prccio for plaintiffs and appellants. Ang11/. V. Sancli'°'z and Conrado T. Santos for defendants and appellee1'. DECISION BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.: Plaintiffs brought. this action in the Court of First Jn~tance of Laguna to recover a parcel of land containing an area (If 7 ,396 sq. m. claimed to have been erroneously included in Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-129 of the land records of said province issued in the name of defendant Santos Belarmino. The principal allegations of thp complaint, as amended, are as follows : On July 1, 1910, the Bureau of lands sold to Timoteo Villegas Lot No. 400 of the Calamba Estate containing an area of 83,579 sq. m. situated in barrio Parian, Calamba, Laguna, at a price payable in 20 annual installments. Since then, Villegas has been in possession of said lot. On January 11, 1915, Villegas sold his right and interest in Gaid lot to Petrona Quintero by virtue of a certifkatP of sale which waf. duly approved by the Bureau of Lands. The purchaae price of the lot was paid in full on September 30, 1931. Petrona Quintero died in 1933 leaving as heirs her <faughters Josefa de Jesus r.nd Pilar de Jesus and her granddaughter Dolores de Jes us, who bc>came the owners by ~uccession of the lot. These heirs are now the plaintiffs herein. Santos Relarmino, one of the defenrtants herein, also pi;rchased from t!1e Bureau of Lands en :nstsllment basis !! portion of thE> same estate known as Lot No. ll211 containing an area o! 61,378 sq, m., which was adjoining Lot No. 400 purchased by Timoteo Villegas. When the cadastral survey of the propc>rty covered by the Calamba Estate was ordered, a r elocation was made of Lot No. 400 and Lot No. 3211 with the result that the latter was subdivided mto Lot No. 8211-N, Lot No. 4639, :md Lot No. 4640, but !n maKing the subdivision n triangular portion with an area of 7,896 sq. m. which originally formed part of Lot No. 400 was erroneously included in the plan and description of Lot No. 4639. Said t.riangular portion was not part of the lot sold by the Bureau of Lands to Suntos Belarmino but. of the lot s:.ld by said Bureau to Timoteo Villegas. Without any judicial prooeedings or court order, the Registe~ 1.1! Deeds of Laguna issued Transfer Certificate of Title S o. T-129 covering the lot originali)' bought !rorD the Bureau of Lands by Santos B<:larmino which, as abow stated, errone.lusly included the triangular portion referred tc.. in the prtteding paragraph. an<i said transfer certificate of title was iASUed in the name of Sa:i.tos Belarmino as to 21,776 sq. m. 11.nd of Epifania Amaterio as to 8,000 sq. m. When thE> two lots mentioned above were sold by the B11reau of Lands to Timoteo Villegas and S.mtos Belarmino as above stated, the Government did not have any certificate of title specifically covering said lots, its only title lx>ing Original Certificate of Title No. 245 which covers t he Calantba Estate, so when Transfer Certificate of Title No . T-129 was issued to Santos Belarmino and Epifania Am::i.torio, the Bureau of Lands did not rely on any title other than Certificate of Title No. 245 covering the Calamba Estate. When Epifania Amatorio dieci, her interest was inherited by Teodora Ochoa de Juliano, who is now in actual possession of the portion of 8,000 sq . m. which waa inherited b)' her, but defenc!ant Santos Belarmino is in possession of the portion adjoining the triangular portion now in question and he alone claims right to said triangular portion. Santos Belarmino and his co-defendant Teodora Ochoa de Juliano never exercised any right of ownership nor possession over said triangular portion because the same had always been in the continuous, open, public, notorious, and adverse possession of th~ predecessors-in-interest of the plaint iffs a s ex· elusive owners thereof. The compl:iint further alleges that the herein defendants, or their predecessors-in~interest, know all the time that the tr iangular portion in question was not part of the lot sold by the Bureau of Lands to Santos Belarmino, but on the contrary they know that said portion always formed part of the land sold to the predecessora-in-interest of the plaintiffs, and that dcfendant Santos Belar mino nenr claimed any interest in said portion except Eometime in March, 1952 when said defendant claimed for the first. time that said portion was included in the certificate of title issued in his favor by the Regi!lter of Deeds. Because of the error above pointed out, plaintiffs pray that they be declared as owners of the triangular portion above adverted to and that Certificate of Title No. T-129 issued in favor of Santos Belarmino be rectified by excluding therefrom said triangular portion. And making the Director of Lands as part'y defendant, plaintiff also prny that he be ordered to take the necessa ry steps to have a certificate of title issued in their favor covering the lot originally purchased by their predecessors-in-interest, since the purchase pr icE> thereof had been paid in full, and in the event that the triangular portion in dispute be not included in said title, the Director of Lands be nrdered to pay to the plaintiffs the amount of P7,396 as vnluc thereof, plus the costs of action. Defendant Santos Belarmino filed a motion to Jismiss alleging in substance thnl, assuming that u por1ion Jf the land owned or occupied by plaintiffs predecessor,,;-in-intcrest was erroneously in· eluded in the title issued to the deff::ndants when the latter buught a portion of the Calamba Estate 0"''1led by the Government, the Cefcndants should not be blamed for that mistake thern being no showing tlrnt they were instrumental or a n accomplice in the rommission of th:it misti.kc, aside from th<! fact that the title issued to them as grantees :Jf public land is as indefeasible or inccmtrovertible as&. titlr· issued under the Land Regirtration Law. The lower cc•urt uphold this contention and in :'In order issued on October 30, 1952, it held that the complaint does n'>t state a cause of action because the defo::ndants are holders of a certificate of title issued by t he Government a.nd as such they should be con· sidered as third parties who acquired the property in good faith and for considf'ration. 11.nd so it dismissed the complaint without pronouncement as to costs. Plaintiffs have taken the present appeal. It is ou:- opinion that the complaint, as ::imended, contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or to sen-e aio basla f nr gr :uiting the relief prayed for by t he plaintiffs. A cursory readb12 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL October 31, 1954 TION BY COURT OR ADVERSE PARTY. - It ia the abeolute prerogative of the plaintiff to d 1 oose the theory upon which he predicates hi! right of action, or the pa rties he desire. to 1ue, without dictation or imposition by the court or the adverse party. Jf he makes a mistake in the choice of his r ight of action; or m that of the parties against whom he seeks to enforce it, that iii his own concern as he alone iruffers therefrom. ing of the complaint will Rhow that both Timoteo VHlegas, predecessor-in-interest of £he plaintiffs and Santos Belarmino, one of the defenrlp.nts, JJUrchased from the Rureau of Lands two Jots each, the former Lot No. 400 cnntaining 1>.n area of 83,579 sq . m. , snd the latter Lot No. 3211 containing an area of 61,578 sq. m.; that Lot No. 400 included the triar.gula1· portion now in question, and not Lot No. 3211, and that si.r.ce the date of it.I:! salf' to Timoteo Villegas, the latter had been in possession of Lot No. 400, :~. mcluding the triangular portion; that, in a re-survey made of those ID.; JD.; I D.; REMEDY OF OFFICERS SUED WHO DESIRF. TO IMPLEAD MEl!lHERS OF UNREGISTERED COFPORA· TION-THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT. - Where the plaintiff sue<l the officers alone, and the latter desire to implead the memberi.i of the unregistereJ corporation and m'.lke them equally responsible in the action, their remedy is by means of a third party complaint, in accord!lnce with Rule l:l of the Rules of Court. But they can not, crimpel the plaintiff to choose his defendants. He may Mt, at his own expense, be fo rced to implead any one who, under adverse 1iarty's theory, is to answer for the defendants' liability. Neither may the court compel him to furnish the means which defendants may avoid or mitigate their liability. lots in accordance with the cadastral law, Lot No. 3211 was subdivided into lots 3211-N, 4639, and 4640; that the original area of Lot No. 3211 was 61,578 sq. m., but after its subdivision into three lots, their total area was increased to 67,808 sq. tn., or a difference of 6,230 sq. m., with the result that the arl!a of Lot No. 400 became 76,591 sq. m. instead of its original area of 83,579 sq. m.; that defendant!:! know all the time that. the trlan gular portion in question was included in the sale made way back in 1910 by the Bureau of Lands to Timeoteo Villegas and not in th(, salP made in the same year by said Bureau to Santos · Belarmino, a s they likewise well knew that the lot bought by Timoteo Villegas, including the triangular portion, had always bc~n in continuous, open, public, notorious, and adverse possession of the plain- 4. tiffs and their predecessors-in-interest as exclusive owners. ID.; ID.; ID. ; ID.; I NDISPENSABLE PARTY AND PARTY JOINTLY OR ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBLIGATION WHICH IS SUBJECT OF ACTION, DISTINGUISHED. -Where the complaint .specifically alleged that the defendants, purporting to be the president and general manager of an unregi!'\tered corporation, entered into the contract by themselves, the presence of the members of the association is not essential to the final determination of the issue presented, the evident intent of the complaint being to make the officers directly responsible. <Article 287, Code 'Jf Commerce, supra). The alleged responsibility of the m«rnhcrs for the contract to the officers, who acted as their agents, is not in issue and need not be determined in the action to fix the responsibility of the officers to plaintiff's intestate, hence said members are not indispensable in the action instituted. The foregoing facts unmistakably show: tll that the lot bought by plaintiffs' predecessors-in-interest included tl1e triangular rmrtion in dii;pute; <2) that said triangular portion was erroneously included in the lot bought by Santos Belarmino in a re-survey inade by the Bureau of Lands years later; <3) that defendants knew, or had actual or coJLstructivc knowkdge, of such mistake; and (4) de-fendants never claimed any right •if ownership or of pos:;ession of said portion until after the issuance of the title issued to them in Hli>2. Under these facts, it is obvious that defendant!: cannot claim to be purchasers in good faith of the J:M)rtion in que:stion Pven if they had paid the cOnsider:iticr. therefor with the sanction of the Bureau of Lands. (Cui & Joven v, Henson, 51 Phil, 606; Legarda & Prieto, 31 Phil. 590; Angeles v . Samia, 66 Phil. 444. ) It should be borne in mind that the complaint was dismissed not because of any evidence presented by the parties, or as a result of the trial i:m the merits, but merely on a motion dismii;s filed by the defendants. Such being the case, the sufficiency of the motion should be tested on the strength of the allegations of facts contained in the complaint, and on no other, If these allegations show a cause of action, or furnish sufficient basis by which the complaint cn.n be maintained, the Ci!mplaint should not be dismissed regardless of the defenses that may be averred by the defendants. It has been said that the test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in a complaint, to constitute a cause of action, is whether or not, 3dmitting the fats alleged, the court could render a ve.lid judgment in accordance with the prayer of said complaint. <Paninsan v. Costales, 28 Phil. 487; Blny v, Batangas Transportation Co., 45 0. G. Supp. to No. 9, p. 1,) In our opinion, the allegations of the instant complaint are of this nature, and so the lower court enecl in dismissing it. Wherefore, tht- order appeakd from is set aside, The Court orders that this case be remanded tC" the lower court for further procecdingE, without pronounct-ment as to costs. pa,,·as, Pablo, Be11,r1zon, Paclilla, Montemayor, A. Reyes, J1t90, Labrador and Coneepcio11, J.J. x Teodoro Vallo, Petitio11er, vs. Hipolito Alo, as Judge of the Court oj First lnstancf! of Bohol, Pedro Dumadag and Esmenio Jumarnuy, Ne.~po~tdtmts, G. R. No. T...-7220, July SO, 1954, Labrador, J. 1. PARTIES; IMPLEADING OF REAL PARTIES, APPLICABLE TO PAHTIBS PLAINTIFF ONLY. - The rule requiring real parties to be impleaded is apph<.able to partieF- plaintiffs, not to parties defendant. :l.. ID.; ID. ; PLAINTFF CAN CHOOSE CAUSE OF ACTION AND PAHTIES HE DESIRES TO SUE WITHOUT IMPOSIRoque R. Lwipo for the petitioner. Victoria:no Tirlll for the respondents. DECISION LABRADOR, J.: Petitioner instituted this acti.in of certiorari to reverse an order of the Court of First Instanr.l: of Bohol refusing to admit hi! fourth amended complaint. The record discloses the following facts and circumstances ns a backg round for the petition: Around the yPar 1947 respondents herein Pedro Dumadag and Esmenio Jumamuy, purporting to be the president and general manager, respectively, of an unregistered corporation or association denominated APHA Cinematographic Shows, Inc., leased certRin theatrical eqmpments from the late .Jose Vaiio at an agreed monthly rental of P200. Jose Vaiio having died, his administrator, the pr& sent petitioner, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Bohol for the return of the theatricel equipments and the payment of the agreed rentals. The -original complaint was filed in September, 1947. Upon the filing of this complaint tl>e association wa9 dissolved. Counsel for the defl'ndnnts below, respondents her~in, appears to have insisted that all the members of the association should be made parties defendants, but petitioner was not inclined lo do so. On J r.nuary 28, 1953, the court ordered petitioner'! •:ounsel to submit a fourth amended complaint. This complaint in part alleges: 2. That in or about Felm.:ary 1947, defendant pur porting to be the µresident and gt:ncral manager respectivP]y of the so-called "APRA" Cinematographic Shows Inc., leased from the late J ose Vniio, the aforementic>ncd Theatrical Equipment,. at an ngr<!l:d monthly rental of 1'\VO HUNDRED (200.00) PESOS, and that he <J ose Vaf10) shall PliY the expenl'es in the in•t.allat.ion, for the same shall be returned on' his demand. ; S. That said Theatrical Equipments mentioned in paraOctober 31, 1954 THE 1.AWYERS JOURNAL· 618