Re: Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14123, Tirso T. Reyes, as guardian of the minors, Azucena, Flor-De-Lis and Tirso, Jr., all surnamed Reyes y Barretto, Petitioners-Appellees versus Milagros Baretto-Datu, Oppositor-Appellant, G. R. No, L-5549, February 26, 1954 [Supreme Court Decisions]

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

Title: Re: Transfer Certificate of Title No. 14123, Tirso T. Reyes, as guardian of the minors, Azucena, Flor-De-Lis and Tirso, Jr., all surnamed Reyes y Barretto, Petitioners-Appellees versus Milagros Baretto-Datu, Oppositor-Appellant, G. R. No, L-5549, February 26, 1954 [Supreme Court Decisions]
Language: English
Source: The Lawyers Journal XIX (5) May 31, 1954
Year: 1954
Subject: Supreme Court Decisions; Registration and transfer; Certificate of transfer; Court of First Instance--Bulacan.
Rights
Abstract: [This is an appeal against two orders of the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, issued in Case No. 116, G. L. R. O. Rec. No. 12908, requiring to oppositor-appellant Lucia Milagros Barretto to surrender Transfer of Certificate of Title No. 14123, issued in the name of Bibiano Barretto. The said title pleaded to be cancelled to issue a new one in lieu thereof in the name of Reyes siblings, named Azucena, Flor-de-Lis and Tirso, Jr., all co-owners of an undivided one-half share and Lucia Milagros Barretto as the owner of the other half.]
Fulltext: of his property, the first remed"y granted is that of restitution of 3. the thing taken away. If restitution can not be made, the law allc-ws the offended party the next best thing, repa.ration. The Spa. nish jurist Viada, commenting on this provision of the law says: ID.; ID.; PRINCIPLES GOVERNING COLLATERAL AT.TACK. - In cases of collateral attack, the principles that a.pply have been stated as follows: "The legitimate province of collateral impeachment is void judgments. There and there alone can it meet with any mea.. sure of success, Decision after decision bears this import: "En las causas por robo, jurto, ete., en que no hayan sido reeuperados durante el proceso Jos objetos de dichos delitos, be condenarse a los reos a su i·estitucion, o, en su defecto, a la indemnizacion correspondiente en la cantida.d en que hayan sido valorados o tasados por loi; peritos; xx." <3 Viada 6>. Rep&l'ation may not be made by the delivery of a similar thing (same amount, kind or species e.nd quality), because the value .of the thing taken may have decreased since the offended party was deprived thereof. Reparation, therefore, should consist of the price of the thing taken, as fixed by the court <Art, 106, Revised Penal Code>. In the case 11t bar, the court considered the payment of• P600 as the next best thing, if, the property taken could not be returned. No valid objection ca.n be raised against this decision; money is the standard of ".Blue, and, except in financial crises, it does not fluctuate in value as much as merchandise or things, especially those bought and sold in the ordina1·y course of comrrieree. In any case, the judgment of the Court of Appeals 01·dering restitution, or the payment of the value of the property taken, is now final and exeoutory and can no longer be subject to modificatjon. The appeal is hereby dismissed, with costs against accused&ppellants. So ordered. Puma, Pa,blo, Bettgaon, ·Padilf.4, MonUmayOt, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista, Angelo, J. J., concur. xx Re: Transfer Certificate of Title No, 14123, Ti.rso T. Reyes, aa guaniian of the minnrs, Azticena, Flor-De-Lis and Tit'so, Jr., ell surnanicd Reyes y Barretto, Petitioners-Appellees versus Milagros Ban-etto .. Datu, Oppositor-Appellant, G. R. No, L-5549, Febr11airv 26, 1954. ,,,~ ~.; 1. F'INAL JUDGMENTSf lllBJ'ERENT WAYS OF ATTACKING THEIR VALIDITY. :_;_''Under oul' rules of procedul'e, the validity of a judgment or order of the court, which has become final a.nd executciry, may be attacked only by a direct aetion or proceeding to annul the same, or by motion in another case if, in the latter case, the &urt had no jul'isdiction .to ente1· the ord~r or pronounce the judgme..t CSec. 44, Rule 39 of thP. Rules of Courtl. The first proceeding is a direct attack against the order or judgment, because it is not incidental to, but is the main object of, the proceeding. The other one is the collateral atta.ck, in which the purpose of the proceedings is to obtain some relit"f, other than the vacation or setting aside of the judgment, and the att8ck is only an incident. Cl Freeman on Judgments, -Sec. 306, pp. 607-GQS. > A third manner is by a petition for relief from the judgment or order as authorized by the statutes or by the rules, such as those · expressly provide:l in Rule 38 of the Rules of Cou1·t, but in this case it is to be noted that the i·elief is gra.nted by express statutory authority in the same action or Proceeding in which the judgment or order was entered. . In the case at bar, we are not .concerned with a relief falling under this third class, because the project of partition was approved in the testate proceedings in the year 1949, whereas the petition in this case is in a. ~·egistrat.iQn proceeding and was filed in the year 1951. 2. ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. -- In the case at bar, the respondent Lucia Milagros Barretto is objecting to the petition by the second methr.id, the collatet'Bl attn.ck. Wh~n a judgment is sought to be assailed in this manner, the rule is that the &ttack must be based not on mere errors or defects in the order or judgments .. There and there alone can it meet with any meaand void, because the court had no power or authority to grant the relief, or no jurisdiction ovC:1· the subject matter or over the parties or both. llbid. Sec, 3261 p. 650). In every· case the field of collateral inquiry is narrowed down to the single issue concerniri.g the void character of the judgment and the nssaila.nt is caUed upon to satisfy the court that such is the fact, To compass his purpose of overthrowing the judgment, it is not enough that he show a mistaken or el'l'oneous decision or a record disclosing non-jurisdictional irregula1ities in the proceedings leading up to the judgment. He must go beyond this and show to the court, generally from the fact of the :record jt.;:elf, that the judgment complained of is utterly void. If he can do that his a.ttack will succeed for the eases leave no doubt respecting the right of a litigant to collaterally impeach a judgment that he can prove to be void." <I Freeman on Judgments, Sec. 322, p. 642.) 4. ID.; ID.; WHEN LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE COURT MAY BE A GROUND.l'OR COLLATERAL ATTACK. - The doctrine that the question of jurisdiction is to be determined by the i·ecord alone, thereby excluding extraneous proof seems to be the natural unavoidable result of that sta.mp of authPnticity whic,h, from the earliest times, was placed upon the record, and which gave it such uncontrollable credit and verity tha.t .no plea, proof, or averment could be heard to the contrary. x x x. Any other rule, x x x, would be disastrous in 'its results, since to pe:cmit the court's records to be contradicted or va.ried by evidence dehors would render such records of no avail and definite sentence would afford but slight protection to the rights of parties once solemnly adjudicated. x x x. Cl Freeman on Judgments, Sec. 376, p. 789.> Deogracias T. Reves and ViruilW Am:. Cruz for appellant. Cala.nog and Alafrk for appellee. DECISION LABRADOR, J. : I\ n;-< This is an ap~eal .pl'Ol:l_ecuted in this' C~J\t} U,ainst two orders of the Court -.if First Instance '-of Bulacan, 1ssUtN::.,:1.n Case No. 116, G. L. R. 0, Rec. No. 12908, requiring t.h~-'~positor-appella.nt J,ueia 1rlilagrns Barretto to surt'fmdt?t' Transfer-;.'q~i:tificate of Title No. 14123, issued in the name of liihiano Bar1:etto;_J1!) that the same may be cancelled and a new one issut'd in lieu'. 'tlieie'Of in the Barn~ (If Azucena, Flor-de-Us and Til'so, J1·., all «slih1.f!..med Reyes, coc1wnr.rs of an undivided one..hal:i sha~·e, and !.U.Cia Mila&'l'08 Barretto as t.he ownt'r r.if the other half. The circumstances leading to tht" issuance of the said orders may be briefly stated a:s follows~ Bihia.110 Banetto died on February 18, 1936, and in the testat.e proceedings for the settlement of his estate, Salud Barretto and Lucia Milagros Banetto wer, declared as his children and heirs. Lucia Milagros Barretto was at that time a minor, 15 years of age, a.nd proceedings were instituted iri the same cou1·t CCsse No. 4988U for the appointment of her guardian, In the testate proceedings a pJ'Oject of partition was submitted, which was signed by Salud Barretto, Lucia Milagros Barretto (minol') and Maria Gerardo (surviving spouse>, the latte!.' signing "on her behalf a.nd as guardian for the Minor, Milagros Barretto," This project of partition was ap:r·roved by the court. It was filed in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Bulacan on May 22, 1940 but the transfer certificate of title over the prope1-ty in question was nevPr cancelled. His widow, Maria Gerardo, died on March 5, 1948, a.nd in the testate proceedings for the settlement of her estate, Lucia Milagros Barretto submitted a will purporting to be of !!'aid deceased for probate, in ac.. ccrdance with which Maria Gerardo had only one child with the deceased Bibia.no Barretto, namely. Lucia Milagros Barretto. Thi• will submitted by Lucia Milagi'Os Barretto was declared to be the last wit! and testament of the deceased Maria Gerardo. (Continued on page 253> 246 LAWYERS JOURNAL May 31, 19.54 SUPREME COURT ... (Continued frorn page 246) Reyes presented the petition for the cancellation of the transfer certificate of title in the name of Bibiano Ba.rretto on March 19, 1951 in Case No. 116, G. L. R. 0. Record No. 12908. Lucia Milagros Barretto filed an opposition, claiming (al that the project of partition approved by the court in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of Bibiano Barretto is null and void, beeausP it appea.rs therefrom that Lucia Milagi:os Barretto was a minor at the time she signed the said project of partition~ and Maria Gerardo was not authorized to sign said project on her <Milagros Barretto's) behalf; and (b) that in accordance "ith the will of the deceased Mari& Gerardo, Salud Barretto was not a daughter of Bibiano Barretto and Maria Gerardo, because only Lucia Milagros Barretto was the daughter of the said spouse. The lower court overruled the above objections and issued the orders mentioned above; so Lucia Milagros Barretto prosecuted this appeal. Under our rules of procedur~, the validity of a judgmeii.t or r,rder of the court, which· has become final and executory, may be attacked only by a direct action or p1·oceeding to annul the same, or by motion in another case if, in the latter case, the court had no jurisdiction to enter the order 01· pronounce the judgment.<Sec. 44, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court) . The first proceeding is a direct a.ttack against the order or judgment, because it is not incidental to, but is the main object of, the proceeding. The other one is the collateral attack, in which the purpose of the proceeding is to bb .. tain some relief, other than the vaca.tion or setting aside of the judgment, and the attack js only an incident. <I Freeman on Judg .. ments, Sec. 306, pp. 607 ... 608.) A third manner is by a petition for relief from the judgment or order as authorized by the statutes or by the rules, such as those expressly provided in Rule 88 of the Rules of Court, but in thia case it is to be noted that the relief is granted by express statutory authority in the same a.ction or proceeding in which the judgment or <1rder was entered. In the ease at bar, we a1-e not concerned with a relief fa11ing under this third class, because the project of partition was approved 'in the testate proceedings in the year 1989, whereas the petition in this case is in a registration proceeding and was filed in the year 1961. In the case at bar, the respondent Lucia Milagros Barretto is objecting to the petition by the second method, the collateral attaek. When a judgment is sought to be assailed in this manner, the rule is that the attack must be based not on mere errors or defeets in the order or judgment, but on the ground that the judgment or of the ReviBP.d Administrative Code. I believe that this ruling applies to the instant case. It is true that Executive Or.der No. 490 did not expressly provide that the first ,mayor, vice.mayor and councilors of. the Municipality of Balingoe.n, Oriental Misamis, who were appomted by the President were to hold office until their successors would have been elected and qualified in the next regular election. But the determining factor is not the terms of the executive order or the appointments, but the provision of Section 10, a:nte. This section makes no distinction btttween municipal officers chosen by election and those chosen by appointmeu.~. and now appears to have been intended. In the absence of any express or implied provision t.o the contrary, it must be concluded that the tenure of a.11 offices ereated by said Section 10 is the same m all cases. There is no plausible support for the theory that the Congress did not intend to place appointive officers Of new inunicipalities on the same ltvel as elective ones. It ia accordingly my opinion that the incumbent municipal ma.. yl"Jr of Balingoan, Oriental Misa.mis, may not be re:moved from office except for any of the causes prescribed in Section 2188 of the Revised Administrative Code. ' Respectfully, <Sgd.) PEDRO TUASON Secretary of Justice order is nuU and void, bees.use the court had no power or authority to grant the relief, or no jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the pa1·ties OL' both. <Ibid, Sec, 326, p. 650.) In cases of collateral attack, the principles that apply have been stated as f.::illows: "The legitimate province of coIIateral impeachment is void judgment. 'fhere and there a.lone can it meet with any mea.. sure of success. Decision after decision bear.S this import: In every case the field of ·collateral inquiry is narrowed down to the single issue concerning the' void character of the judg~ent and the assailant is called upon to satisfy the court that such is the fact. To compass his purpose of overthrowing the judgment, it is not enough 'lihat he show a mists.ken or erroneous decision or a record. disclosing non..jurisdictional .irregularities in the pro.ceedings leading up to the judgment. He must go beyond this and show to the court, generally from the fact of the record itself, that the judgment complained of its utterly void. If he can do that his attack will succeed for the cases leave on doubt respecting the iight of a litigant to collaterally impeach a judgment that he can prove to be void." Cl Freeman on Judgments, Sec. 822, p. 642'.) Is the order approving the project of partition absolutely null and void, and if so, does the invalidating cause appear on the face of sa.id project or of the reeo1·d? It is argued that Lucia Mi1agros Barretto was a minor when she signed the partition, and that Maria Gerardo was not her judicially appointed guardian, The c1aim is not true. Maria Gerardo signed as guardia.n of the minor, and her authority to sign can not be questioned <Secs. 8 and 6, Rule 97, Rules of Court) . The mere statement in the project of partition that the guardianship proceedings of the minor Lucia Milagros Barretto are pending in the court. does not mean that the guardia.n had not yet been appointed; it meant that the guardianship proceed .. ings had not yet been terminated, and as a guardianship proceedings begin with the appointment of a gus.rdian, Maria Gerardo must have been already appointed when she signed the project of partition. There is, therefore, no irregularity or defect or error in the project of partition, apparent on the reconl of the testate proceedings, which shows that Maria Gerardo had no power or authority to sign the project of partition as guardia.n of the minor Lucia Milagros Barretto, and, consequently, no gi·ound for the contention that the order approving the project of partition is absolutely null and void and may be attacked collateraUy in these proceedings. That Saiud Barretto is not a da.ughter of the deceased Bibiano Barretto, because l'fp.ria Gerardo in her will stated that her only daughter with the said deceased husband of he"rs is Lucia Milagros Barretto, does not appear from the project of pa.rtition or from the record of the case wherein the partition was issued. It appears in a will submitted in another case. This new fact alleged in the opposition may r.ot be considered in this registration case, as it tends to support a collateral a.ttack which, as indicated above, is not permitted. The reasons for this rule of exclusion have been rxpressed in the fo1lowing words: "The doctrine that the question of jurisdiction is to be determined by the record aloi:ae, thereby excluding extraneous proof seems to be the natural unavoidable result of that stamp of au.. thenticity which, from the earliest times, was placed upon the 'record,' and which gave it such 'uncontrolla.ble credit and verity that no plea, proof, 01· averment could be heard to the contrary.' x x x. Any other rule, x x x, would be disastrous in its results, since to permit the court's i·ecords to be contra .. dieted or varied by evidence dehors would i·ender such records of no avail and definite sentences would afford but slight protection to the rights of parties once solemnly adjudicated. Finding no enor in the orders appealed from, we hereby a.ffirm them, with costs against the oppositor .. appellant. xx x." Cl Freeman on Judgments, Sec. 376, p. 789.> So ordered. Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Brwtista Angelo, J. J., concur. Mr. Justice Concepcion and Mr. Justice Diokno did not take part. May 81, 1954 LAWYERS JOURNAL 258
pages: 246, 253