G.R. No. 1715. July 03, 1905

Please log in to request a case brief.

4 Phil. 577

[ G.R. No. 1715. July 03, 1905 ]




The facts found by the court below are in substance as follows :

  1. The plaintiffs in this suit are the legitimate descendants of six sons of Pedro Sarmiento, who died intestate in the year 1875.
  2. Pedro Sarmiento died intestate June 25,1875, leaving six legitimate
    sons, Nicomedes Sarmiento and five brothers. At the time of his death
    Pedro Sarmiento was the owner and was in possession of the land in

  3. In December, 1876, the year
    following the death of his father, Nicomedes Sarmiento, for himself and
    in his own name, filed an information ad perpetuam to the
    effect that between his father and himself, as forced heir of the
    former, he had for thirty years been in possession of the land in
    question, the information being approved, without prejudice to third
    parties, by an order of the 18th of September, 1877. This information
    was duly protocoled and a literal copy thereof inscribed in the
    Register of Property on the 8th of August, 1891.

  4. Nicomedes Sarmiento, with this title to the property formerly, owned by
    his father, on the 23d of September, 1891, conveyed the same to his
    attorney, Antonio Roxas, the conveyance being recorded the 26th of the
    same month. In the instrument of sale Nicomedes Sarmiento, the grantor,
    makes the peculiar statement “that he is the possessor of a fish pond
    or inclosure (describing the land in dispute), which fishery he had
    acquired by inheritance from his deceased father, and of which he had,
    since the death of his said father, been in the quiet and peaceful
    possession for some thirty years, as appears in the summary possessory
    information filed by the grantor in the Court of First Instance of
    Bulacan the 14th of December, 1876.”

  5. Antonio Roxas, on the 25thof September, 1891 (that is, two days after
    he had bought the land in question from Nicomedes Sarmiento), obtained,
    by composition with the State, a title to the same land. This
    instrument was recorded in the Property Register the 26th of September,

  6. Antonio Roxas, with the title of
    purchase and sale covering the fish pond sold him by Nicomedes
    Sarmiento, and with the title which he had obtained by composition with
    the State for the land covered by the same purchase deed, executed a
    contract of purchase and sale with Mariano Caragdag, in which, appears
    the following statement: That he is the owner in fee and is seized of
    an estate (describing the land in dispute). He then goes on to state
    that of the estate referred to he acquired the fishery by virtue of a
    deed of sale executed by Nicomedes Sarmiento, and that he is the owner
    of the land on which the fishery is located by virtue of a title of
    composition with the State. This instrument of purchase and sale was
    inscribed in the Property Register the 22d of August, 1896.

  7. Mariano Caragdag, with the preceding title, on August 2, 1897, sold the
    land conveyed to him by Antonio Roxas to the widow of the latter,
    Rafaela Paguia, the defendant herein. This instrument was inscribed in
    the Property Register the 5th of October, 1897.

  8. It has also been proved that a sister of Nicomedes Sarmiento brought
    suit against the latter for the partition of Pedro Sarmiento’s fishery
    among the brothers, Nicomedes Sarmiento having taken possession of the
    same. In this suit Antonio Roxas was attorney for Nicomedes, and the
    suit was discontinued by reason of an agreement between the litigants
    providing for the division of the fishery among the six brothers. The
    interested parties, at various times during the years 1894 to 1896,
    made demand on Antonio Roxas for the execution of this agreement and
    the delivery to them of the fishery then in his possession, but without
    success. Rafaela Paguia, wife of Antonio Roxas, had knowledge of all
    these transactions, which, in 1896, upon the death of her husband, the
    interested parties continued, but unsuccessfully, with her directly.

Articles 33 and 34 of the Mortgage Law are as follows:

“Art. 33. The record of instruments or contracts which are null in accordance with the law are not validated thereby.

34. Notwithstanding the statements contained in the preceding article,
the instruments or contracts executed or covenanted by a person who,
according to the Registry, has a right thereto, shall not be
invalidated with regard to third persons, after they have once been
recorded, although later the right of the person executing them is
annulled or determined by virtue of a prior deed not recorded, or for
reasons which do not clearly appear from the Registry.

by virtue of a recorded instrument may another later instrument, also
recorded, be invalidated to the prejudice of third persons, with the
exceptions mentioned in article 389.

“The provisions of this
article may at no time be applied to the instrument recorded in
accordance with the provisions of article 390, unless the prescription
has validated or secured the interest referred to herein.”

Applying article 34 to the facts above stated, the result is that Rafaela Paguia is the owner of the land in question.

The decision of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this
instance against the appellants. After twenty days have elapsed,
judgment will be entered in conformity herewith, and the cause will be
returned to the trial court for execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.

Date created: April 25, 2014


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Apply Filters