Digest of Decisions of the Court of Appeals

Title

Language

English

Source

The Lawyers Journal Volume XIX (Issue No.6) June 30, 1954

Year

1954

Subject

Philippines -- Court of Appeals -- Decisions

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

[This article provides a list of decisions by the Court of Appeals.]

Fulltext

DIGEST OF DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS F.STOPPEL; ESTOPPEL "IN PAIS"; RULE. - While it is tru<! that, because of P.quitublc cstQilpel, "a party can not, in the course of a litigation, be permitted to 1·epudiate his r<!presentations, or t)<'!Cupy inconsi.:tent positions" I Magdalena Estate vs. Myrick, 71 Phil., :344: 3 Moran, Rules of Court <Perm. Ed.>, p. 496), it is fundamentd in the law of t"Stoppt;\ 111 pafa that the representations held to conclude a party should be of matf'riul fttcts: that the rcprt:senta.tion be made with full knowledge of the truth; and that party invoking the estoppe\ should have been misled to his prejudice <3 Moran, Op. Cit. 494; 21 C.J ., s. 227, pp. 1223.1225.) Test11ttJ E,'stote of the Late Dorotea Apostol. Beiiedicta Obisvo, et al., petitioners and appellees, v.~. Remedios Oi·isp11, oppositor and appellant, C. A. No. 8454-R, Ortober 1, 195:J, Reyes, J. B. L., J. ID.; CONCLL'SIONS OF LAW IN PLEADING CAN NOT GIVE I-:ISE ESTOPPEL. - When it appears from the plain terms of a. pleading that there is no alli!gation of fact therein, but only conclusions of law, such conclusions can not give rise to estoppel rn1 C. J ., 1225>. Ibid. Ibid. / EVIDENCE; WJTNl<.:SSES; TESTIMONY; PARTY MAY CALl OPPONENT AS HIS OWN WITNESS. - There is no provision of law or of the Rules of Court that would prevent a party to a litigation from calling any of the opposing partie:ii to be his witness, so long as the one called is not disqualified under section 25 or section 26 of Rule 123. On the contrary, section 83 of said rule expressly authOrizes the calling of any adverse party as such witness, even if leading q~estions have to be employed to overcome his natural hostility. It the previous acts or former statements of th~ witnes!! contradict his present testimony, they may be shown to impeach his credibility under sections 91 and 92 of Rule 123, but they would not be grounds to bar him from testifying. WILL ; PROBATE; ESTOPPEL, WHF.N NOT APPLICABL.E IN PROCEEDINGS. --!. Probate proceedings involve public intere~, and the application therein 11f the rule of estoppel, when it will block th~ ascertainment of the truth as to the circumstances surrounding the execution o! a. testament, would seem inimical to p\1blic policy. Over and above the interest of private parties is that of the state to see that ti!stamentary dispositions be carrit>d out of it, and only if, executed conformably to Jaw. 1!11 Re Canfield's Will, 300 NYS 502). / hid. / bid. F:VIDENCE; RECEPTION 01" EVIDENCE OF DOUBTFUL ADMISSIBILITY, LESS HARMFUL. - Receution o! evicl.ence or doubtful achnissibility iii: in the long r~n the less harmful course, since all material necessary for final adjudication would come before the appellate trih:mali;. (Prats & Co., vs. Phoeni>" Insurance Co., 52 Phil., 816.) Ibid, Ibid. PROPERTY; STOLEN MOVABLES; OWNER'S TIIGHT TO RF.COVER. - That plaintiffs, as owners, are absolutely entitled to recover the stolen truck!'!, or any fl8rts thereof, results from the :tpplication of article 464 of the old Civil Cude. Ethel Case, et al., plaintiffs and appellants, n . F elipe F. Cru::, defendant antl uvpellee, C.A. No. 9779-R, October 1, Hl53, Re11e11, J.B. T .-., .t. MOTOR VEHICLE; OWNERSHIP; CERTIFICATl<.: OF REGISTHATION, NOT CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP.It is a n:atter o! law and general knowledge tnat certificates of registrati,m are not conclusive on the ownership of the vehicle, and they are only issued for wholly assembled motor vehicles, not for component parts thereof. Ibid, Ibid. PROPERTY; POSSESSION IN GOOD FAITH. - The good faith of a possessor consists in the absence of knowledge of a defect that invalidates his title (Art. 433, Civil Code of 1889> or, as stated in article 1950 of the same Code, "a belie! that the person from whom he re~eived the lhing was the owner thereof aud could transmit title thereto", which belief must be well./01mded or rea:;;<mable <S~ntiago vs. Cruz, 19 Phil., 148; Leung Yee vs. Strong, ante; Emas vs. Zuzuar:·egui, jam cit.). Ibid, Ibid. ID.; ID.; ID.; POSSESSION IN I.JAD FAITH; RElMBURSEMENT OR REMOVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS. -- The spirit of articles 453 and 454 of the Spanish Civil Cod._,. of 1889 <in force in 1944 to 1946, when this case institutuD is to deny a possessor in bad faith any 1·ight to be reimbursed for or to remove the improvements (ex;>Msas utiles) made by him, even if he could remo,·e them without injury to the principal thing (3 Sanchez Homan, Estudios de Derechos Civil, 449; 4 Manresa, Commentaries, 6th Ed., p. 318>. Ibid, Ibid. ID.; ID.; ID.; Ill.; ID.; REPAIRS; TERM "NECESSARY- EXPENDITURES", CONSTRUED. - By "necessary exp•~nditures" have been nlways understood those incurred for the preser·ua. tion of thr thing, in order fr prevent its becon;i1~g m;desz; or those without which .the th!ng would deteriorate or ~ lost (Alburo vs. Villanueva, 7 Phil., 277; .1, Ma.nresa, 6th Edition, p. :as; 8 Scac\·ob, Codigo Ci\'if, p. 408) ; "invtrsiones hechas para que la cosa 110 perezca o desmerezca" (3 Puig Peiia, Derecho Civil, Vo!. 3, Part I, p. 46). Ibid, Ibid. OWNF.RSHIP; CHAT'l'EL MORTGAGE; MORTGAGOR, N01' DIVERTED OF ALL O\VNERSHIP. - It is now i·ecognized that a chattel mortgag€. is merdy .:i. real right of security <Bachrach vs. Summers, 42 Phil., 3> and does not compk•tP!y divest the morlg'lgC'r of ownership. l/1;d, lbirl. WILLS; TESTATOR'S SIGNATURE; LOCATION IMMATERIAL.. - Section 618 of Act 190 (unlike article 805 of the new Civil Code) did not require that the testator should "subscribe at . the ~nd" of the will. All it required was that the will - "be written in the language or dialect known by the testator .:i.nd signed by him, or by the testator's name written by some other person in his p1·esence and by his e>:press direction x xx." Th£ Jaw did not expressly stipulate eny particular place for thf, tr.stator's signature; and there is respectable'! authority that under similar statutes, the location of the signature has been held immaterial, (Alexander, Treatise on Wills, Vol. I, pp. 55865!>, 564, 565; Gardner c·n Wills, p. 185; Woener on Wills, Vol. I, pp. 89-90). Testate Esta,te <>/ Roman Castillo. deceased. Jose C. Platon, prtiticme'I" and appellant, vs. Antonfo Castillo et al., counter-petitioner and oppositors.«1>pellee, C. A. No. 1042-R Octvbl.lr 12, 1953, Reyes. J.B./,., J. ID.; ID.; ID.; SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OF THE LAW SUFFICIENT. - The authenticity of the preceding pages o! a will not hP.ing in any way endange1·e<l by the absence of the te£tator's signature at the foot of the fourth page, becaus·~ r.11 pages curied the marginal signat~re of the testator nud the three witnesses, Held: that the law was substantially complied with. Ibid, ll>id. ID.; FAILURE TO PAGE FIRST SHEET, NOT SUFFICI ENT GROUND TO REFUSE PROBATE . - · The failure to page the first sheet of a will composed of several sheets is not a suffici~nt. ground to refuse its pl'obate, where other circun;stances supply identificali;m, as already decided by the Supr1;:me Court oi' thr. Islands in Lopez vs. Libero, 4G Off. Gaz., No. 1 (Supp.>, 211. Ibid, Ibid. ID .; DATING OF WILL OR ATTESTATION CLAUSE UNNECESSARY. - The bw docs not require either th2 will or the attestation to be dated (Pasnr> vs. Ravina; 54 Phil., 379, 380). fl.id, Ibid. June 30, 1954 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL 811

pages

311

Media