RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CECILIO IMAZ, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED SALUSTIANO ZUBELDIA, AND WARNER, BARNES & CO., LIMITED, DEFENDAN…

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
Province of Albay in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff in an
action of ejectment.

The facts in the case are substantially undisputed. It appears that in
January, 1906, Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, the owner ‘in fee simple of a
tract of land in the town of Albay, part of which is in dispute in this action,
began proceedings in the Court of Land Registration for the registration of its
title thereto under the provisions of Act No. 496. In June, 1906, said company
sold a portion of the land thus undergoing registration to Salustiano Zubeldia,
whose estate is represented by the defendant Cecilio Imaz as administrator. By
an oversight, however, said company failed to amend the proceedings before the
Court of Land Registration so as to exclude from the land described therein that
portion thereof which it had sold to Zubeldia.

Immediately after the sale Zubeldia entered into posession of the land in
question, made improvements thereon, and erected a stone wall along the dividing
line between the lot sold to him and the rest of the property retained by
Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, undergoing registration as aforesaid. The
fact that Zubeldia had been in actual possession of the property in question
from the time of its sale to him down to the time of his death, which occurred
during the pendency of this action, was known to the plaintiff.

About three years after the sale to Zubeldia the Court of Land Registration,
in the proceeding hereinbefore referred to, entered a decree in favor of Warner,
Barnes & Co., Limited, registering its title to the tract of land described
in the application, including therein the land sold to Zubeldia, the fact of the
sale to him, as we have already said, having been overlooked by the parties to
said proceeding.

In July, 1911, G, M. Laing, the agent of Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited,
in Albay, acting in behalf of the company, agreed, by a proper instrument in
writing, to sell to the plaintiff in this case, for the sum of P3,000, the
remainder of the tract of land from which Zubeldia’s lot had been sold.
That this was the land actually sold and no other is certain. Laing testified
that before executing the contract of sale to the plaintiff he took him
personally to inspect the land which he was buying and pointed out the
boundaries thereof; that at that time the land sold to Zubeldia some four years
before was entirely cut off from the rest of the land by a stone wall. Laing
pointed out the wall as being the limit of the land under consideration, saying,
“I took him there and showed him the walls, advising him that the part we
desired to sell him was all that contained within the walls on the
land.”

A short time after the execution by Lamg of the contract with the
plaintiff, Juan T, Figueras, manager of Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, arid
in representation of said company, executed a conveyance of the land in question
to the plaintiff, taking the description of the land set out in the conveyance
from the description of the property as registered in the Court of Land
Registration. On account of the fact, however, that the sale to Zubeldia
had been overlooked in the proceedings for the registration of title, the
description in the conveyance executed by Figueras on behalf of the company
included not only the land sold to plaintiff but also the land sold four
years before to Zubeldia. Plaintiff’s conveyance was duly delivered to him
and, upon its presentation to the registrar of deeds of Albay, a certificate of
title was issued to him under the provisions of Act No. 496.

In November 1911 plaintiff made a demand upon Zubeldia for the possession of
the property then occupied by him, the same being, as we have said, included in
the description in the conveyance received by him from Warner, Barnes & Co.,
Limited. The demand for possession having been refused, plaintiff commenced this
action in December, 1911, against Zubeldia. The latter obtained an order of the
Court of First Instance for the inclusion of Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited,
as a party defendant, and said company is the real defendant in the
case.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the owner of the land
occupied by Zubeldia. The answer denies this and alleges that the inclusion of
the Zubeldia lot in plaintiff’s conveyance was due to a mutual mistake, and asks
that the court make a correction of the record by the exclusion of the Zubeldia
property from plaintiff’s conveyance and the records thereof. The judgment of
the court granted the relief prayed in the answer.

We have no doubt from the evidence in this case that the plaintiff knew, at
the time the contract of the sale was executed, as well as when the conveyance
was made, that Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, did not intend to sell him the
land which it had already sold to Zubeldia about four years before; and that his
purchase was restricted to the land adjoining that sold to Zubeldia and
separated therefrom by a stone wall which, in large part, inclosed the lands
sold to and then occupied by Zubeldia.

The plaintiff relies for a reversal of the judgment upon the proposition that
a Torrens title is absolutely indefeasible and that as he has a certificate of
title showing from the description therein that he is the owner of the lands
occupied by Zubeldia, such title cannot be successfully resisted by the
defendants herein.

There might be some force in this declaration if the litigation were between
the plaintiff and Zubeldia alone, and the plaintiff were an innocent purchaser
for value. Undoubtedly, so far as an innocent purchaser for value is concerned,
the decree of registration of the Court of Land Registration cut off the title
of Zubeldia to the land in question and left him with naked possession alone.
But, as between plaintiff and Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, he is not an
innocent purchaser for value; indeed, he is not a purchaser at all. As we have
said, it is substantially undisputed that Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, and
the plaintiff agreed, the one to sell and the other to buy, a certain parcel of
land, with definite boundaries, perfectly visible on inspection, which lands and
the boundaries thereof were shown to the purchaser by the seller and were
recognized and accepted by him as the boundaries of the land which he proposed
to buy. In other words, the minds of the parties met upon the purchase and sale
of a given, definite parcel of land. By a mistake, an oversight, there crept
into the instrument by which it was sought to make the proposed sale effective a
description which included not only the land which the parties had agreed upon
as the subject matter of their contract but also an additional piece of land
which was not within the contemplation of either party at the time the contract
of sale was made. As between Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, and the
plaintiff, therefore, the latter got nothing by reason of the mistake which the
company made in the description of the land sold. Immediately on discovering the
error Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, could have brought an action to correct
the conveyance and make it represent the real intention of the parties. As
between them no question as to the indefensibility of a Torrens title could
arise. Such an action could have been maintained at any time while the property
remained in the hands of the purchaser. The peculiar force of a Torrens title
would have been brought into play only when the purchaser had sold to an
innocent third person for value the lands described in his conveyance.

Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, being a party to this action, and the land
still remaining in the hands of the purchaser, the plaintiff herein, Warner,
Barnes & Co., Limited, may, on behalf of Zubeldia, or his successors in
interest, exercise the same rights and pursue the same remedies which it could
have exercised and pursued if it had been the plaintiff in an action to correct
the description in the conveyance by which the property was transferred to the
plaintiff. There having been a mutual mistake between Warner, Barnes & Co.,
Limited, and the plaintiff in this case in the execution of the conveyance in
question, that mistake can be corrected in the action before us, the defendant,
Warner, Barnes & Co., Limited, having presented in its answer facts
sufficient for such affirmative relief and such relief having been prayed
affirmatively therein. That is precisely what the learned trial court did, and
we are of the opinion that it acted correctly.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Arellano, C J., Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.