Manila Trading and Supply Co., Petitioner-Appellant, vs. Register of Deeds of Manila, Respondent-Appellee, G. R. No. L-5623, Jan. 28. 1954 [Supreme Court Decisions]

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: Manila Trading and Supply Co., Petitioner-Appellant, vs. Register of Deeds of Manila, Respondent-Appellee, G. R. No. L-5623, Jan. 28. 1954 [Supreme Court Decisions]
Language: English
Source: The Lawyers Journal XIX (5) May 31, 1954
Year: 1954
Subject: Registration and transfer; The Manila Trading and Supply Co.; Court of First Instance – Manila
Rights
Abstract: The Manila Trading and Supply Co., a corporation, is the lessee of three parcels of land in the Port Area, Manila, belonging to the Philippine Government, such lease having been recorded on the Government's Certificate of Title No. 4939. The structures built by said company upon the lots were destroyed during the last war; but after liberation, it erected new buildings that cost over a million pesos. Thereafter, on April 12, 1951 it requested the Manila Court of First Instance to require the Register of Deeds to enter and annotate, on Certificate of Title No. 4948, its Declaration of Property Ownership of such valuable improvements. The court granted the request (1). Then the Register of Deeds demanded payment of P1308.00 for the assurance fund pursuant to section 99 of Act No. 496. The company refused to pay, and applied to the court for relief thru a petition-consultation. The Register of Deeds was upheld.
Fulltext: understanding, Except, therefore, for that appointment and the court's final approval, and as far as the estate was concel'ned, the right of the buyer was complete, absolute and incontestable , Not only was the sale made in pursuance of the special administrat9r's motion, but the parties have fully complied with its terms. Under the circumstances, only want of any of the essential elements of a contract can give the petitioners the right to stop the court's confirmation of the transaction, The petitioners have not submitted a copy of the record on a.ppeal, nor other supporting papers except excerpts thereof or of some of them, and we are not informed of the exact basis of their objection to the sale. As a matter of fact, we incline to the opinion that the conveyance made by the special administrator was valid and effective and that there was no necessity of a.ppointing a regular administrator to ratify it or execute a new deed. While Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 81 and Seetion 8 of Rule 87 specify the cases in which a special administrator shall be appointed 'and the duties which they in general are to perform, Section ~ of Rule 81 expressly authOrizes him to sell "such perishable and other property as the court orders sold ." Further, debts which a speoial administrator may not be sued for may be settled and satisfied by him if "expressly ordered by the court to do so." <Golingco vs. Calleja, et al., 69 Phil. .446.) If the court may authorize a special administrator to pay debts, it seems to follow that it may authorize him to sell property to raise the money to pay the debts. Here there was a debt to pay a.nd there was an order to sell the only property of the intestate for the purpose of paying that debt. The court finds no merit in the application and, accordingly, denies it, with costs against the petitioners. -Paras, Pablo, Bengzo-n, Padilla, ftfof\lemtiyor, Reyes, J1190, BautiiJta. A-ngelo a.nd Labrador, J.J., concur. VI Manila Trading rrnd Supply Co. , P~titio11er-Appellant, ti3. Register of Dfleds of Ma11ila, Respondl!nt-Appellee, G. R. No. L-5623, Jan. 28. 1954. · LAND REGISTRATION; CERTIFICATE OF TITLE; ANNOTATION THEREON OF OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS; CASE AT BAR. - The l\lanila Trading snd Supply Co., a corporation, is the lessee of three parcels of land in the Port Area, Manila, belonging to the Philippine Government, such le:lsc having- been recorded on the G:>Vemment's Certificate of Title No. 4939. The structures built by said company upon the Jots were destroyed during the last war; but after liberation, it erected new buildings that cost over a. million pesos. ThcreaftP.x, on April 12, 1951 it reque~ted the Manila Court of F ii:st Instance to require the Register of Deeds to enter and annotate, on Certificate of title No. 4948, its Declaration of Property Ownership of such valuable improvements. The court granted the request. Then the Register of Deeds demanded payment of Pl308.00 for the assurance fund pursuant to section 99 of Act No. 496. The company refused to pay, and applied to the court for relief thru a petition-consultation. The attorney fo1· appellant insists here that section 99 is inapplicable, because the matter is not original t·egistration of "land," nor entry of :\ cet·tificate showing title aa registered c;;wners in heirs or devisees. The Legislature knew, he argues, tha.t "buildings" "nd "improvements" are not "land." Held: Upon examination of the whole Land Registration Act we are satisfied that "land" as used in section 99 includes buildings. For one thing the same section uses "real estate" as synonymous with land, Anrl buildings are "real estate" CSec. 334, Civil Code; Art. 415, New Civil Code; Republica de Filipinas v. Ceniza, L-4169, Dec. 17, 1951>. FC1r another, although E'ntitled "Land Registratiol'!," having exprE>ssly pe1mitted in its initial sections <sec. 2> th' registration -if t itle "to land or buildings or an interest therein" and declared that the proceeding shall be in rrni against the land and the buildings and improvements thereon, the statute (Act 496) uioed in sub:iequent provisions the word "land" as a short term i:.q,uivalent "to land or buildings or improvements" to avoid frequent repdition of " buildings and improvements." Unless, of course, a different int~rpretation is required by the intent or the terms of the provision itself, which is not the cas.:- of section !>9. On the contrary, tQ cwa:tder buildings as within its range w:iuld be entit-ely in li!J~ its purpose because as rightly pointed out by His Hon~ would be unfair t or petitioner to enjoy the protection of the assurance fund even if it refuses to contribute to its maintenance. Ross, Sel11fl, Cur-rascoso and JJ..:tu!l for petitioner-appellant. for ;;~;/!~:. Gentra( haH R. Li1~and Solicitor Jose G. Bautista DECISION HENGZON, J .: The issue for adjudication is whether the owner ot building ~ected on premises leased from another person is required to cont ribute to the assurance fund when he petitions for annotation of his Ownership on the corresponding certificate of Torrens title. The facts are simple: The Manila Trading and Supply Co., a corporation, is the lessee of three parcels of land in the Port Area, Manila, belonging to the Philippine Government, such lease having been recorded on the Government's Certificate of Title No. 4939 . The structures built by said company upon the lots were dcstroyea during the last war ; but a.fte.r liber:ttion, it erected new buildings that cost over a million pesos. Thereafter, on April 12, 1951 it nquested the Manila Court of First Inst.Ince to require the Register of Deeds to enter and annot:tte, on CutificatE> of Title No. 4948, its Declaration of Property Ownership of such valuable improvements. 1'he court granted the request ( 1). Then the Register of Deeds demanded payment of P1308.00 for the assurance fund pursuant to section 99 of Act No. 496. The company refused to pay, and applied to the court for relief thru a petition-consultation. Th~ Register o.f Deeds was upheld. Hence thfa appeal. Section 99 provides in pa.rt: ''Upon the original registration of land under this Aet, and also upon the entry of a cel'tifics.te showing title l\S regis.tered owners in heirs or devises, there shall be paid to tht: register of deeds one-tenth of one percent\<m of the asse,;i;cd value of the r eal estate on the basis of the last assessment fo!' municipal taxation, as an assurance fund. x x x" The Honorahle Ramon R. San Jose, J udge, approving ~e Hegister's action explained: "x x x considerando quc Ja anotacion de la citada ordcn, juntamente con el exprcsado affidavit, en el Certifieado de Titulo No. 4938 de Gobierno de ·Filipinas, crea un inte1·u en cl terreno descrito en el referido titulo sobre todo en el presente caso en que t:onsta inscrito un contra.to de arrendamiento de! terren.> entre el Gobierno y la dueiia de Jos edificios, este Juzgt:dc es de opinion que la cuestion discutida cae de Ueno bajo las disposici.ones legales que hablan no solamente de tel'J'eno, sino tambien de 'real estate' y de 'interes' en el ter reno y dan proteccion a los que, sin negligencia suya, pierdan irreivindicablemente su derccho, interes o participacion, en el terreno y/o las mejon.s existentes en el mismo. Es injusto que la recunent.e tenga la proteccion de sus edificios bajo el fondo de aseguro y no haga su contribuccion al mismo. x x x ." th() Act <496J permits the registration of interests therein, im- The attorney for appellant insists here that section 99 is inapprovements, and buildings. Of course the building may not be plicable, because the matter is not original registration of "land,'' registered separately and independently from the p:ir~el ou nor entry of a certificate showing title as regi~tered owners in heirs which it is constructed, as aptly observed by Chief Justice or dcvisees. The Legislature knew, he argues, that "buildings" and Arellano in 1909, But "buildings" are r egisterable just the imme under the Land Registration System. It seems clear that . 01 ~:OOJ)ef~~~rn$iB~~F~Bi~. 1!,~d~,!'l~·"o~12,6A~~1t.9636~Jd vrotectt the ririh11 of 226 LA WYERS JOURNAL May 31, 1954 "improvements" a.re not "land." Upon examination of the .whole Land Registration' Act we are satisfied that "land" as used i11. section 99 includes buildings. For Pne thing the same section uses "real estate" as synon71J1ous with land. And buildings are "real estate" <See. 334, Civil Code, Art. 416, New Civil Code, Republics de Filipinas v. Ceniza, L-4169, Dec. l'i', ·1951) .2 For a.nother, altl1ough .entitled "l141UI Registl'a.tion," the Act <496) pennits the registration of interests therein, improvements, and building. Of course the building may not b& registered sepa1·ately and. independently from the parcel on which it is eonstrueted, as aptly o~ed by .Chief Justice Arellano in 190£1.S But "buildings" a~ re'gisterable just -the same under the Land Re"gistration System. It seems clear that having expressly permitted in its initial sections <sec. 2> the .registration of title "to land or baildings or an interest therein'~ and_ ®clared that the proceedings shall· be in Tew. against the land and the buidings and impwvements thereon, the statute <Act 496) used in subsequent provisions the word "land" as a short term equivalent "to land or buildings or improvements"4. Unless, of cour.se, a different interpretation' is required by ~he intent or ·the terms of the provision itself, which is not the case of section 99. On the contrary, to consider buildings as within its range would be entirely in line with its purpose because .as rightly pointed out by His Honor, it would be unfair fo;r petitioner to -enjoy the protection 'of the assurance fund5 even as it refuses to contribute to its niaintenance. Wherefore, the appealed order will be affirmed, with oosts. POlra8, Pablo, Padilla, Reyes, Jugo;, Batttista Angelo . and Labrador, JJ., concur. · . , .. I reserve my vote ....... ·Marcelino R .. Montemayor. VII People of tlte Pltilippines, Plaintif/~Appellee vs. Mazimo Pacheco, aJias Emong, alia.a Guemo, Di;fenda.n.t-Appella:nt, · G. R. No. L-4570, July 31, 1953. 1. CRIMINAL LAW; TREASON; VENUE. - It is common knowledge that when the Government found it was no longer necessary to maintain one People's Court for the whole PhiJ.. ippines to try treason indictments, the Congress abolished that Court and directed th8.t treason eases "pending before it shall be heard by the respective courts of first instance. There is nothing to indicate congressional intention to disturb the usual rules on jurisdiction or venue of courts of first instance nbtaining before the .creation of. the People's Court. 2. IBID; IBID; IBID; TREASON A CONTINUOUS OFFENSE. - The information alleged in substance that Pacheeo, beirig .a Filipino citizen, willfully aided the Japanese in two instances, to wit: (1) the .arrest, maltreatment af!d shooting of Ceferino Rivera on January 2, 1945 in the Municipality of Polo, Bulacan, and (2) the arrest and torture in Manila, in February 1945, Qf Judge Eugenio Angeles, whom the accused had pointed to the Japanese as a guerrilla major of Polo, Bulacan. At the opening of the trial, counsel for the ·defense ques... tioned the jurisdiction of the Bulacan court to take cognizancEi of the second count, inasmuch as it refei:red to acts which occurred in Manila. Held: The crime of treason may be committed '_'by executing, either a sfngle or several intentional overt acts, different or similar but distinct aJ.1d for that reason" it may Ii"' considered one single .continuous offense. <Guinto v. Veluz 44 0. G. 909> • It Diay therefore be .prosecuted in: any province wherein some of-th~ esBential ingredients thereof occurred. <Sec. 9· Rule 106. (U.- S. vs. Santiago ,27 Phtt. 408; U. $, vs. Cardell 23 ·Phil.-- 201>. To- uphold appellant's contention would be to permit another prosecution against him in the Court 0£ First Instance of Ma.nils <See Guinto vs. Veluz supra.> Civrdenas and Casal for appellant. . Solicito.,. G1>1t1Wt1l Pompeyo Diaz and SolicitOT Pacifico P. de CastTo for appellee, DECISION BENGZON, J.: In the year 1950, Maximo Pacheco was tried for treason in the court o~ first instance of Bulacan, the amended information allegii:ig, in the first count, acts performed in Polo, Bulacan and in the second. acts in the City of Manila. The Honorable Manuel P. Barcelona, Judge, in a decision dated January 10, 1951, found him guilty aa charged, and sentenoed him to be imprisoned for life, to pay a fine of Pl0,000 aad to indemnity the heirs of Ceferino Rivera in the amount of P6,000.00. The accused appealed in due time. Bis printed brief saaigns four errors that raise two principal issues: (1) jurisdiction of the court to try the second count and C2> credibility of the witnesses. The. information alleged in substance that Pacheco, being a Filipino citizen, willfully aided the Japanese in two instances, to wit: (1) the a.rrest, maltnatnient and shooting of Ceferino Rivei::a on January 2, 1945 in the Municipality of Polo, Bulacan, and (2) the arrest and torture in Manila, in :February 1945, of Judge Eugenio ·Angeles, whom the accused had pointed to the Japanese as a guerrflla major of Polo, Bulacan. At the opening of the tri•l, counsel for the defense questioned ~he. jurisdiction of the Bulacan c9urt to take cognizance of the .second count, tn'asmuch as it referred to acts which occurred in Manila. Thf' Judge ovenuled the contention, adverting to its orders in previous cases on the same issue. We do not find in this record the reasons of the trial judge. Very probably, however, they refer to the same theory advanced by the People in this appeal relative to one continuous offense consisting of several acts, occurring in different provinces, offense which may under the .principles governing . venue be prosecuted in any province wherein any material ingred·i~nt of the offense is shown to have been committed. The appellant however cites Republic Act No. 811 that in dissolving the People's Court ordered all cu.sea then pending. therf!"in to be "transferred to, and tried by, the respective Courts of Fir&t Instance of the p1·ovinces or cities where the offenses are alleged to have been ~mmitted." · It is common knowledge that .when the ·Government found it 'was no longer necessary to maintain one P.eople's Coul't fot: the whole Philippines to try treason indictments, the Congress abolished that Court and directed that treasnn cases pending before it shall be heard by the respective courts of first instance. There is nothii:ig to indicate congressional intention to disturb the: usual rules fin jurisdiction or venue of courts of first instance obtaining beft\re the creation of the People's Court. Under· the l'Ules, the trial court's jurisdiction may be and should be upheld in this case. The crime of treason may be committed "by executing, either a .single or several intentional overt acts, differai.t or similar but dis.. tinct and for that reason" it may be considerEd one single continuous offaise. (Guinto v. VeJuz 44 0. G. 909). It may thPrefore be prosecuted in any province wherein some of the esBential ingr<>:lients thereof occurred. <Sec. 9 Rule 106). CU. S. v. Santiago 27 Phil. 408; U.S. v. Cardell 23 Phil. 207>. To uphold appellant's ·contention would be to permit another pro.. seeution against llim in the Court of First Instance of Manila <See Guinto v. Veluz supra.). Having disposed of the preliminary question, we may now examine the record. As to the first count, Isidro Rivera, Dominga Camatos, Antonio de Guzman, Federico San Juan and Regino Galicia took the witness stand, aJld their combined teatimony ~ows: In the morning of January 2, 1945 four Filipino makapilis Ctwo of them were Maximo Pacheco, 25, and Teofilo Encarnacion> entered the house of Filo.. mena de la Cruz in Pasong Balite, Polo, Bulacan, and arrested her son..in-law Ceferino Rivera, 24, as a guerrilla suspect, in the 'preMay 31, 195·4 LAWYERS JOURNAL 227
pages: 226-227