GUTIERREZ HERMANOS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. NARCISO ALEGRE AND CRISTOBAL MARCOS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the Province of
Sorsogon, on the 2d day of May, 1911.

It appears from the record that on the 16th day of September, 1009, the
plaintiff commenced an action against Cristobal Marcos and later obtained a
judgment against him in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Sorsogon,
in the sum of P19,117.26. In the month of March, 1910, an execution was issued
upon said judgment against the property of Cristobal Marcos. Under said
execution the real and personal property of the said Marcos was attached. Before
the sale of said property so attached, the defendant, Narciso Alegre, presented
a claim to the sheriff, alleging that he was the owner of the cattle which had
been attached. By virtue of the claim of Narciso Alegre the said cattle were
released from the attachment and turned over to him. The other property attached
belonging to the said Marcos was sold at public sale and the sheriff received
for the same the sum of P5,373, leaving a balance unsatisfied on said judgment
of P13,744.26.

In the present action the plaintiff alleges that the cattle which had been
excluded from the said attachment had been sold by Cristobal Marcos to Narciso
Alegre for the purpose of defrauding his creditors; that the sale was a
simulated one. The plaintiff prays that the court find that said cattle belonged
to Cristobal Marcos; that the alleged sale from Marcos to Alegre was fraudulent,
and that said cattle be subjected to said execution and sold; and further, that
if any of the cattle which had been attached under said execution could not be
found, a judgment be rendered against the defendants, jointly and severally, for
their value.

To the petition of the plaintiff the defendants demurred, which, upon
consideration, was overruled.

The defendants answered by a general and special defense. In the special
defense the defendants alleged that the sale of the cattle in question by
Cristobal Marcos to Narciso Alegre was a bona fide sale, made for a
valuable consideration, and that at the time of said sale Cristobal Marcos was
solvent. Narciso Alegre further alleged that, by reason of the illegal and
unlawful attachment of said cattle, he had been prejudiced and damaged in the
sum of P3,000, and prayed judgment for that amount.

After hearing the evidence, the Honorable Francisco Santamaria, judge,
rendered a judgment, in which he absolved the defendants from the complaint and
decreed that the plaintiff should pay to the defendant, Narciso Alegre, the sum
of P1,800, or return to him the cattle which were lost by reason of said
execution, and to pay the costs. From that judgment the plaintiff appealed to
this court and made a number of assignments of error.

The important and principal questions presented by the appellant is whether
or not the sale of the cattle in question by Cristobal Marcos to Narciso Alegre
was a valid and bonafide sale and whether or not at me time of the sale
Cristobal Marcos was solvent. Upon each of said questions the lower court found
in favor of the defendants. There is much conflict in the evidence adduced
during the trial of the cause. There is much proof supporting the conclusions of
fact of the lower court. The lower court, however, overlooked some “facts which
have an important bearing upon the issues presented. While the defendants
alleged in their answer that the sale of the cattle by Cristobal Marcos to
Narciso Alegre took place in 1908, the record shows that the actual transfer of
the cattle was made on the 18th of August, 1909, The record further shows that
they were not marked or branded until June, 1911, long after said judgment and
execution in the first case, and not until more than a month after the present
action was commenced to set aside said sale. The record shows that the action
against Cristobal Marcos was commenced on the 16th of September, 1909; that a
judgment was rendered against him and an execution issued upon the same in the
month of March, 1910. Section 22 of Act No. 1147, enacted May 3, 1904, provides
that, “No transfer of large cattle shall be valid unless registered, and a
certificate of transfer secured as herein provided.”

In the case of Ramos vs. Hijos de I. de la Rama (15 Phil. Rep.,
554), we held, in discussing said quoted provisions of Act No. 1147, that:
“Unless the record of such transaction is so registered and the certificate
obtained, the ownership of the cattle does not pass and they may still be
attached as the property of the vendor.”

In view of the fact, therefore, that at the time of the execution the cattle
were not registered, even granting for the purposes of the argument that the
sale was not simulated, it was not valid and the title did not pass from
Cristobal Marcos to Narciso Alegre, and therefore the plaintiff had a right to
have the cattle sold under his execution, as of the property of the defendant
Cristobal Marcos. The ownership of the cattle, at the time of the attachment,
had not passed from Marcos to Alegre, even granting that the sale was not
fraudulent. Alegre, at the time of the attachment, had not become the owner of
said cattle. Alegre was not, therefore, entitled to have the cattle released
from said attachment and returned to him. Just what effect the release of the
cattle in question from the attachment by the sheriff upon the claim of Alegre,
had upon the rights of the respective parties to this action, we do not now
discuss. That question has not been presented by either party. We express no
opinion upon that question.

In addition to the foregoing there are many facts in the record which
indicate that the sale of the cattle by Cristobal Marcos to Narciso Alegre was a
simulated sale, in addition to the fact that the transfer of the same did not
take place until long after the alleged sale was made. For instance, the books
of the respective parties contain no minute or memorandum of the transaction
until long after the alleged sale had been perfected, according to the claim of
the defense. The record also shows that the sale was made at a price
considerably less than the market value of the cattle. We do not, however, deem
it necessary to discuss in detail the other facts which seem to point strongly
to the fact that the sale was simulated, for the reason that the above quoted
provision of Act No. 1147 makes the sale invalid. The title not having passed at
the time of the attach merit, the vendee (Alegre) was not entitled to have the
cattle released from said attachment and returned to him. The plaintiff had a
right to have the cattle sold under his execution.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the lower court must be reversed
and it is hereby ordered and decreed that a judgment be entered declaring:

First. That Cristobal Marcos was the owner of the cattle in question at the
time of the attachment;

Second. That said cattle be subjected to said execution;

Third. That in case any of the cattle attached under said execution can not
now be subjected to said execution, by reason of the unlawful acts of the
defendants, that a judgment be rendered against them, after a proper hearing,
for their value.

Without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.

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