ANDRES E. VARELA ALIAS ANDREW E. VARELA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT VS. JOSE VILLANUEVA, ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Mariano R. Varela died in Batangas, Batangas, on September 5. 1940.
Intestate proceedings (No. 3708) were instituted in the Court of First
Instance of Batangas on September 16, 1940 by his first cousin, Jose
Villanueva. The petition alleged that Mariano Valera was single at the
time of his death and left as the sole heir his brother, Andres Valera y
Villanueva, who had been absent from the Philippines since many years
ago and last resided at No. 1343,122nd Street, New York City, U. S. A.
Efforts were immediately exerted by Jose Villanueva, through Rafael
Villanueva, and by Marcelo “P. Alay, a servant and protegee of the
deceased, to contact Andres Varela, enlisting the aid and good offices
of Francisco Varona, then attached to the Philippine Resident
Commissioner in Washington, D. C.; the Division of Territories and
Island Possessions, Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C; the
Filipino National Council in New York; U. S. Secretary of State; and
Congressman Fred L. Crawford of Michigan. The whereabouts of Andres
Varela, however, remained unknown.

In the meantime, the petition in the intestate proceedings having
been duly published, various collateral relatives of Mariano Varela had
entered their appearances, namely, Rosario Rodriguez Varela,
half-sister; Faustino Rodriguez Varela, son of a deceased half-brother;
Felix Villanueva and brothers, first cousins; Manuel Villanueva and
brothers (except Rafael Villanueva), first cousins; Rosario Villanueva
and brothers, first cousins; and Rosario Torres Watson and Enriqueta
Torres Smith, first cousins. On November 6,1940, over the opposition of
Rosario Rodriguez Varela and Faustino Rodriguez Varela, the court
appointed Jose Villanueva as administrator,—

On February 14,1941, Rosario Rodriguez Varela and Faustino Rodriguez
Varela, on the one hand, and Carmelo Bautista the latter represented by
Josefa Enopia, on the other, executed the following compromise
agreement:

“Este CONVENIO DE TRANSACCION otorgado y suscrito por:

“JOSEFA ENOPIA, mayor de edad, Filipina, vecina y residente en el
municipio de Batangas, provincia del mismo nombre, Filipinas, en
representacion de su hi jo Carmelo Bautista;

“ROSARIO RODRIGUEZ VARELA, soltera, mayor de edad, Filipina,
vecina y residente en la ciudad de Manila, Filipinas;

“FAUSTINO RODRIGUEZ VARELA, mayor de edad, Filipino, casado,
vecino y residente en la ciudad de Manila, Filipinas;

“ATESTIGUA, QUE:

“1.” POR CUANTO Don Mariano Rodriguez Varela y Villanueva fallecid
en el municipio de Batangas, provincia del mismo nombre, el 5 de
Septiembre de 1940;

“2.” POR CUANTO Don Mariano Rodriguez Varela y Villanueva fallecio
sin haber dejado testamento y con propiedades ubicadas en la provincia
de Batangas que, de acuerdo con el inventario sometido por el
Administrador Don Jose Villanueva monta a P45,251.00;

“3.” POR CUANTO dicho finado no ha dejado hijos ni desceiidientes
legitimos, ni tampoco padres o ascenientes legitimos;

“4.” POR CUANTO de conformidad con las disposiciones de la ley, el
unico heredero legal del finado, con exclusion de todos los otros
parientes, es un hijo natural reconocido llamado Carmelo Bautista, ahora
menor de edad y representado en este documento por su madre y tutora
natural Da, Josefa Enopia;

“5.” POR CUANTO el recocimiento de dicho hijo consta en escrito
indubitado del finado Mariano Rodriguez Varela y Villanueva, cuyo
escrito obra en poder y se halla bajo la custodia del administrator Don
Jose Villanueva y Romualdez.

“6.” POR CUANTO a los otros comparecientes, que son media hermana y
sobrino, hijo de medio hermano, consta que el referido finado ha
reconocido publicamente y continuadamente al joven Carmelo Bautista como
su hijo natural y este ha disfrutado publica y continuadamente de tal
estado de hijo natural reconocido;

“7.” POR CUANTO como ya se ha dicho, el referido finado Don
Mariano Rodriguez Varela y Villanueva reconocio en vida, publicamente, a
Carmelo Bautista como su hijo natural presentandole asi a todos sus
parientes, entre ellos los comparecientes, a sus amigos y a la sociedad
en general, atendiendo a, su subsiatencia y educacion y cuidando como un
buen padre de familia del bienester y porvenir de su citado hijo;

“8.” POR CUANTO los comparecientes no desean sostener entre si
ningun litigio para la division de la herencia, pues a todos consta la
legitimidad del derecho de Carmelo Bautista de reclamar para si, como
unico heredero legal abintestado del finado, toda la herencia de este,
despues de deducidas las obligaciones que tuviere;

“9.” Por cuanto por su parte, el hijo natural reconocido Carmelo
Bautista, no desea tampoco quedarse para si con toda la herencia,
privando a los hermanos y sobrinos del finado, entre ellos los otros
comparecientes, de toda participacion en la herencia, y siendo el deseo
de dicho ( Carmelo Bautista el que todos participen en cierto sentido de
la herencia relicta por su finado padre;

“POR TANTO, las partes han convenido en lo siguiente:

“(a) En que el citado Carmelo Bautista sea declarado como
hijo natural reconocido del finado Don Mariano Rodriguez Varela y
Villanueva, y como su unico y legitimo heredero abintestado;

“(b) Que habiendo deiado el finado un hermano llamado
Andres Rodriguez Varela, el cual se halla ausente de Filipinas,
ignorandose su paradero e ignorandose, asimismo, si existe 6 ha
fallecido pues de el no se tiene noticias desde hace muchos anos, el
otorgante Carmelo Bautista se compromete a reservar de los bienes que
reciba como su herencia del intestado de su difunto padre, bienes
muebles 6 mmueWes por su valor equivalente a doce mil uesos (P12.000),
en la inteligencia de que los frutos naturales, industriales 6 de otra
indole que perciban los bienes perteneceran al otorgante Carmelo
Bautista, quien solo vendra obligado a entregar al referido ausente, al
tiempo de su presentation, bienes 6 dinero por valor de P12,000.

“(c) Que el otorgante Carmelo Bautista se compromete a
entregar a su tia Da. Rosario Rodriguez Varela tan pronto como reciba la
herencia de su difunto padre, bienes 6 metalico, a election de esta, en
la suma de seis mil pesos (P6,000);

“(d) El mismo Carmelo Bautista se compromete a pagar a eu
primo Faustino Rodriguez Varela tan pronto como reciba la herencia del
finado bienes 6 metalico por la misma cantidad de seis mil pesos
(P6.000);

“(e) Finalmente, qiie todas las partes comparecientes en
este documento consider an este como una transaction de sus derechos
hereditarios en los bienes relictos por el finado Don Mariano Rodriguez
Varela y Villanueva, y renuncian a formular cualquier otra reclamation
ahora 6 en lo futuro que pudiera derivarse de sus derechos hereditarios
como parientes del referido finado, y renunciando los unos en favor de
los otros cualquier derecho que pudiera derivarse de su cualidad de
herederos abintestado del referido finado;

“(f) Que en caso de que el ausente Don Andres Rodriguez
Varela no aparezca 6 sea declarado muerto, la participacion que se le
asigna en este documento acrecera la parte del hi jo natural reconocido y
cualquier derecho que los otorgantes pudieran tener sobre dicha
participacion se renuncia expresamente por ellos en favor del hi jo.
natural;

“(g) Queda especialmente convenido y pactado que este
documento surtira efecto entre las partes—en cuanto a las obligaciones.
monetarias que en su virtud se contraen—tan pronto como haya sido
aprobado por el Juzgado correspondiente, conviniendo las partes en
someter este documento a la aprobacion del Juzgado de Testamentarias que
conoce del Intestado del finado Don Mariano Rodriguez Varela y
Villanueva.

“Leido este documento por los otorgantes y encontrandolo conforme
con lo por ellos convenido, la otorgan su consentimiento firmandolo por
octuplicado en la ciudad de Manila, Filipinas, hoy a 14 de Febrero de
1941.

“(Fdo.)ROSARIO RODRIGUEZ VARELA.
“(Fdo.) JOSEPA ENOPIA en representation de su hijo Carmelo Bautista
“Fdo.) FAUSTINO RODRIGUEZ VARELA.”

On March 25, 1941, a motion was filed by Carmelo Bautista, praying
that he be declared the sole heir of the deceased Mariano Varela,
entitled to inherit all his properties; that the above-quoted compromise
agreement (attached to the motion) be approved in toto; and that the
administrator be ordered to pay, after payment of all debts and
obligations, to Rosario Rodriguez Varela and Faustino Rodriguez Varela
the amounts due them under said compromise agreement. Upon motion of
attorney for some of the claimants, the hearing of the motion was
postponed to April 7, 1941. On April 2, Atty. Jose Avancena appeared for
Rosario Rodriguez Varela, represented previously by Atty. Tomas Yumol.
On April 7, 1947, the Court of First Instance of Batangas issued the
following order:

“Tratase de una mocion presentada por la representation de Carmelo
Bautista, con la concurrencia de Da. Rosario Rodriguez Varela, media
hennana del finado Mariano Rodriguez Varela, y Villanueva y su sobrino
Faustino Rodriguez Varela en la que pide la aprobacion de un convenio
que obra unido a los autos en cuya virtud se pide que se declare al
mencionado Carmelo Bautista, como hi jo natural reconocido del difunto
Mariano Rodriguez Varela y Villanueva, y como tal, unico heredero de los
bienes relictos por el mencionado finado, se autorice al administrador
que pague, con cargo a la herencia, a Da. Rosario Rodriguez Varela y a
D. Faustino Rodriguez Varela, la suma de P6.000 cada uno, reservdndose,
ademas, de los bienes remanentes del finado, bienes 6 metalico,
montantes a la suma de P12,000 que habra de retener a su poder el hijo
natural reconocido para ponerlo a disposition del hermano del finado
llamado Andres Rodriguez Varela, quien se halla ausente de Filipinas
desde hace muchos afios, ignorandose actualmente su paradero, en la
inteligencia de que, los frutos naturales, industriales o de otra indole
que perciban los bienes asi reservados perteneceran al mencionado
Garmelo Bautista, quien soio vendra obligado a entregar al referido
ausente al tiempo de su presentation bienes 6 dinero por valor de
P12,000.

“Con fecha de 29 de marzo del presente ano, se registro en la
Escribania de este Juzgado un escrito de comparencia por el Abogado D.
Claro M. Recto como abogado de Felix Villanueva y hermanos, Manuela
Villanueva y hermanos (excepto Rafael Villanueva) y Rosario Torres
Villanueva y hermanos, quienes alegando ser primos hermanos del finado y
como tales personas interesadas en este intestado, pidieron la
posposicidn de la consideration de la mocion de Carmelo Bautista que
estaba sefialada para el 2 de abril de 1941. El Juzgado, proveyendo a
dicha motion, pospuso la vista para esta fecha.

“Llamada la vista de esta motion en el dia de hoy, previa
notificacion a las partes interesadas, el Escribano dio cuenta de que se
ha recibido en la escribania unescrito firmado por el abogado Sr. Recto
en la que con la conformidad de sus clientes, se retiraba de su
representaeion. Ninguna otra persona comparecio por dichos ‘opositores.
Don Felix Villanueva, uno de dichos opositores, se limito a comparecer
como abogado del administrador y manifesto en corte abierta que habiendo
firmado el administrador su conformidad a la mocion, el no tenia
objecidn a su aprobacion. Por el mencionado Carmelo Bautista comparecio
el Abogado Jose M. Casal y Rosario Rodriguez Varela y Faustino Rodriguez
Varela comparecieron asistidos de su abogado Sr. Jose Avancena, quien
manifesto unirse al mocionante a los efectos de pedir la aprobacion del
convenio de transaccion unido a los autos.

“Examinados los autos, resulta, que el finado Don Mariano
Rodriguez Varela y Villanueva no ha dejado hijos ni descendientes
legitimos, por lo que bajo las disposiciones de la ley son llamados a su
sucesion los parientes colaterales quienes resultan ser hermano de
doble vinculo llamado Andres Rodriguez Varela, Da. Rosario Rodriguez
Varela y su sobrino, hi jo de medio hermano, Faustino Rodriguez Varela,
quien debera concurrir a la herencia con ella por derecho de
representacion.

“Tratandose como se trata, de una sucesion intestada, los
parientes mas proximos excluyen los mas remotos y por consiguente los
hermanos y sobrinos excluyen de la herencia los primos y demas parientes
en el mismo grado que estos.

“Resulta tambien, que dicha Da. Rosario Rodriguez Varela y su
sobrino Faustino Rodriguez Varela, que como quedo dicho son Qamados a la
sucesion de este intestado por ministerio de la ley, reconocen, en
virtud del documento cuya aprobacion se pide, que el finado Don Mariano
Rodriguez Varela y Villanueva, ha dejado nn hi jo natural reconocido
publicamente llamado Carmelo Bautista y este, como tal hijo natural
reconocido, viene a sucederle en sus derecho s y acciones y demas bienes
con la exclusion de todos los parientes colaterales.

“Y resultando, que este convenio se ha hecho por los
comparecientes, Rosario Rodriguez Varela y Faustino Rodriguez Varela, en
perjuicio aparente de sus propios intereses, puesto que el
reconocimiento que en el documento hacen de la existencia de un hijo
natural reconocido del finado y de la posesion publica que este hijo
natural ha gozado de su estado de hijo natural durante la vida del
finado, les excluye de toda participacion a la herencia de esta, el
Juzgado no halla otra alternativa mas que aprobar este convenio en los
terminos en que esta redactado, salvando cualquier derecho que pudiera
tener el hermano ausente Andres Rodriguez Varela, en el caso de que
xompareciere.

“En su virtud, con la aprobacion del convenio unido a los autos
otorgado por Carmelo Bautista, representado por su tutora Da. Josefa
Enopia, por un lado, y Da. Rosario Rodriguez Varela y Faustino Rodriguez
Varela por otro, se declara al joven Carmelo Bautista como hijo natural
reconocido del finado Mariano Rodriguez Varela y Villanueva con derecho
a sucederle en todos bienes y se ordena al administrador a que de los
fondos que tenga en su poder 6 de los que pudiera procurarse con los
bienes relictos por el finado, pague a Da. Rosario Rodriguez Varela y
Faustino Rodriguez Varela la suma de P6,000 cada uno, en cumplimiento de
los terminos del convenio.”

On October 29, 1942, the administrator filed a petition for the
delivery of the properties to Carmelo Bautista and for the closing of
the intestate proceedings. On January 28, 1943, the court ordered
Carmelo Bautista to file a bond for P12,000 to secure the payment of the
amount due under the compromise agreement to Andres Varela, his heirs
or successors-in-interest, or that a lien in the same amount be noted in
Certificate of Title No. 5418 covering the land one-half of which
corresponded to Carmelo Bautista. Upon petition filed by the
administrator on February 1, 1943, the court issued an order on February
2, declaring the intestate proceedings closed.

On January 2, 1946, Andres E. Varela alias Andrew E. Varela, filed a
complaint in the Court of First Instance of Batangas against Jose
Villanueva and others, in the main praying that the order of April 7,
1941, issued in Special Proceedings No. 3708, be annulled and that
Andres Varela be declared the sole heir of his deceased brother Mariano
Varela. On October 7, 1947, Andres Varela filed an amended complaint
with practically the same prayer. Plaintiff’s theory is that the
defendants Jose Villanueva, Rafael Villanueva, Josefa Enopia, Rosario
Rodriguez Varela, Faustino Rodriguez Varela, Jose Perez Cardenas and
Jose M. Casal conspired together in fraudulently causing the Court of
First Instance of Batangas to issue the order of April 7, 1941. After
trial the court rendered on August 12, 1948, a decision the dispositive
parts of which read as follows:

“Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

“(a) The plaintiff is ordered to deliver the possession
of the properties: to Luisa Villanueva the land described in Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 3271 of the Province of Batangas, the cadastral
lots Nos. 971 and 968 of the municipality of Batangas, and the
proindiviso one-half share of the land described in the Original
Cerfificate of Title No. 139, Province of Batangas, and the following
personal properties a mirror and a small marble table parted in the
middle which Andres Varela had taken; to Jose Villanueva, the land
covered by Transfer Certificate of the Title No. 3677 Province of
Batangas; to Felisa Vergara and her minor children the land described in
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4021 of the Province of Batangas; to
Encarnacion Samos arid her minor children a portion of 7/12 share of the
land described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3800 of the
Province of Batangas and to the minor children of Carmelo Bautista,
namely, Carmen, Romeo and Fe, all surnamed Varela, the undivided
one-half share of the land described in the Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 5418 of the Province of Batangas the parcels of land described
in Tax Declaration Nos. 63881, 53205, 59595 (which is a portion of the
land described in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 342 of the Province
of Batangas), and 48758, all of them in the municipality of Batangas,
Batangas, and an undivided one-half share in the land described in the
Original Certificate of Title No. 140 of the Province of Batangas, all
of which are identified as the properties described in letters I, J, K,
L, M and N of paragraph 5 of the amended complaint, and the following
personal properties, eight chairs, two tables, two wardrobes, one bed
and one desk. The defendant Luisa Villanueva has presented no proof of
the value of the mirror and the small marble table, neither the minor
children of Carmelo Bautista have offered proof of the value of the
personal properties above-described, all of which had been taken from
them by the plaintiff and, therefore, the court is not in a position to
render a money judgment against the plaintiff for the value of the said
furniture and fixtures in the event that their re-delivery cannot be
effected;

“(b) The plaintiff is hereby sentenced to pay to Jose
Villanueva the sum of P1,026.73 damages suffered by him for the wrongful
attachment of his properties with legal interest from the date of this
decision;

“(c) the plaintiff is sentenced to pay to the minor
children of Carmelo Bautista the amount of P6,492.50 the value of 209
cavanes of palay, and P30 the value of 62 gantas of corn, and to deliver
13 gantas of mongo, the value of which has not been proven and also to
pay P150 the proceeds of the sale of coconut fruits, with legal interest
thereon from the date of this judgment;

“(d) The plaintiff is sentenced to pay Luisa Villanueva
the total sum of P3,270 the value of palay harvested and income received
from the land with legal interest from the date of this decision; and

“(e) The complaint is hereby dismissed with costs
against the plaintiff, and the attachment levied upon the properties of
the defendants Jose Villanueva and Luisa Villanueva, as also the notice
of Its pendens recorded on the back of the titles of the properties
belonging to the defendants, the subject matter of the present
litigation, are hereby ordered discharged and cancelled.”

The plaintiff Andres Varela has appealed. To start with, we may
state that the present action was filed three years after the final
closing of the intestate proceedings of Mariano Varela, and that the
rule is that an action to annul a judgment, upon the ground of fraud,
will not lie unless the fraud be extrinsic or collateral and the facts
upon which it is based have not been controverted or resolved in the
case where the judgment sought to be annulled was rendered, and that
false testimony or perjury is not a ground for assailing said judgment,
unless the fraud refers to jurisdiction (Labayan vs.
Talisay-Silay Milling Co., 68 Phil., 376); that fraud has been regarded
as extrinsic or collateral, where it has prevented a party from having a
trial or from presenting all of his case to the court (33 Am. Jur., pp.
230-232). The reason for this rule has been aptly stated in Almeda et
al. vs. Cruz, 47 Off. Gaz., 1179:

“Fraud to be ground for nullity of a judgment must be extrinsic to
the litigation. Were not this the rule there would be no end to
litigations, perjury being of such common occurrence in trials. In fact,
under the opposite rule, the losing party could attack the judgment at
any time by attributing imaginary falsehood to his adversary’s proofs.
But the settled law is that judicial determination however erroneous of
matters brought within the court’s jurisdiction cannot be invalidated in
another proceeding. It is the business of a party to meet and repel his
opponent’s perjured evidence.”

The deceased Mariano Varela left a book of memoirs in his own
handwriting discovered by the administrator Jose Villanueva among his
belongings, which book was presented in evidence as Exhibit I. The
following entries are contained in said book:

“1920. Josefa Enopia se unio comigo en la noche del dia sabado 16
de octubre de 1920, en Manila y estuvo toda la noche conmigo.

“(Exhibit 1-a.)

“1921. El 16 de Octubre de 1920, dfa en que apadrine a Ramon
Tarnate, fue la primera vez en que Epay Enopia durmio conmigo en Manila,
y desde entonces una vez masdurmiamos juntos, hasta el 4 de Febrero
1921, que era carnaval.

“Desde el mes de Diciembre dijo que ella estaba en cinta.

“Julio. El dia 16 sabado 11:30 p.m. dio a luz un nino. De modo que
a los nueve meses coincidiendo en el mismo dia Sabado y fecha 16, daba a
luz.

“En el registro civil en el Municipio aparece registrado el
casamiento de Josefa Enopia con Gaudencio Bautista, el 19 de Junio de
1921, este es su anterior pretendiente, que yo fui preferido y aceptado a
el.

“No me cabe duda que este chiquillo es mio.

“El dia Domingo 22 de Enero de 1922, fiesta del pueblo, yo fui el
padrino de este nino, a peticion de toda la familia y se le puso el
nombre de Carmelo.

“(Exhibits 1-b and l-c)

The foregoing entries formed the principal basis for the execution
of the compromise agreement between Rosario Rodriguez Varela and
Faustino Rodriguez Varela, on the one hand, and Josefa Enopia, in
representation of Carmelo Bautista on the other, which in turn led to
the order of the Court of First Instance of Batangas dated April 7,
1941, declaring Carmelo Bautista as acknowledged natural child of
Mariano Varela, entitled to succeed to all his estate.

As Rosario Rodriguez Varela and Faustino Rodriguez Varela were
represented by counsel both in the execution of the compromise agreement
and in the hearing for the approval by the Court of First Instance of
Batangas of said compromise agreement, it cannot be contended that they
were not aware of the true facts surrounding the proceedings. Indeed,
they uncomplainingly accepted the benefits of said agreement.

As already stated, at the commencement of the intestate proceedings,
a thorough search for the whereabouts of Andres Varela was made, and
all available agencies were asked to lend their assistance in locating
him. Even Marcelo Alay, a witness for the plaintiff and a protegee of
Mariano Varela, himself made necessary inquiries. Indeed, in his letter
written on June 22, 1941, to the Resident Commissioner in Washington, he
made the special request that Andres Varela be advised to attend to the
properties and wealth left by his brother Mariano Varela, because some
other interested parties were taking charge of said wealth amounting to
more than P200,000 at the same time informing that Andres was the
nearest and rightful heir of his brother Mariano. It is difficult to
believe that Andres Varela was purposely prevented from having or
deprived of his day in court because, first, in the petition filed in
the intestate proceedings by Jose Villanueva, who was appointed
administrator of the estate of Mariano Varela, it was specifically
alleged that Andres was the sole heir of his deceased brother Mariano
Varela; secondly, no stone was left unturned in discovering the
whereabouts of Andres Varela; and, thirdly, the intestate proceedings
lasted for quite some time, having been started on September 16, 1940
and finally closed only on February 2, 1943, thereby giving ample
opportunity for Andres to appear. That there was not the least intention
to disinherit Andres Varela, although the existence of Carmelo Bautista
as acknowledged natural child of the deceased Mariano Varela,
necessarily excluded htm and other collateral relatives, is shown by the
fact that provision was made in the compromise agreement, reserving to
him the share of P12,000, which was twice as much as the share granted
to Rosario Rodriguez Varela and Faustino Rodriguez Varela.

There can be no question about the authenticity and probative value
of the book of memoirs, since even plaintiff’s principal witness,
Teofilo Gui (confidential secretary of Mariano Varela), testified that
the entries therein are in the handwriting of Mariano; although more
than two months after said testimony was given, Teofilo was recalled to
the witness stand, and in redirect examination declared that he admitted
that said memoirs are in the handwriting of Mariano Varela, because,
when the book was handed to him in the former hearing, he saw the name
Mariano R. Varela appearing on the back thereof. This rather belated
explanation is unconvincing. Moreover, while some opposing attorneys
secured copies of the entries in Exhibit “I” for examination by the NBI
handwriting experts, they had failed to submit in evidence any such
examination or analysis.

The force and effect of the acknowledgment made by Mariano Varela in
his book of memoirs of Carmelo Bautista as his natural son is sought to
be nullified by the plaintiff-appellant, by contending that Josefa
Enopia, mother of Carmelo was married to Gaudencio Bautista, on June 19,
1921, and that Carmelo was born during said marriage. There is,
however, ample evidence tending to show that Josefa was forced by her
father to marry Gaudencio and that, prior to and after her marriage to
Gaudencio, she never had any carnal contact with him; that in the
decision of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City rendered on March
10, 1941, from which no appeal was taken, the marriage of Josefa to
Gaudencio was declared null and void, and Josefa’s children were
declared to have never been neither legitimate nor illegitimate children
of Gaudencio. The regularity of the annulment proceedings, apart from
being legally presumed, is borne out by the testimony of Juan Soli j on,
a lawyer and a witness for plaintiff-appellant, and of course by that
of Josefa Enopia and her lawyer.

In Special Proceedings No. 3708 of the Court of First Instance of
Batangas, claims to the estate of Mariano Varela were actually before
the court, affecting Rosario Rodriguez Varela, Faustino Rodriguez Varela
and several other first cousins of Mariano, and even the
plaintiff-appellant himself as alleged in the petition filed by Jose
Villanueva; and said claims logically were in conflict with the latter
claim interposed on behalf of Carmelo Bautista. The court was called
upon to determine who of said claimants had preferential right to the
inheritance, and each claimant of course was entitled and bound not only
to dispute Carmelo’s alleged right but also to establish his adverse
claim. The issue thus presented, was disposed of in the order of April
7, 1941, approving the compromise agreement entered into between Carmelo
Bautista, represented by Josef a Enopia, and Rosario Rodriguez Varela
and Faustino Rodriguez Varela, the two nearest kin next to Carmelo that
necessarily excluded the other collateral relatives. There was
accordingly a judicial settlement of the controversy, and said order of
April 7, 1941, was no less a judgment on the merits which may be
annulled only upon the ground of extrinsic fraud.

The plaintiff-appellant has failed to demonstrate, notwithstanding
his elaborate efforts, that there was such extrinsic or collateral fraud
as would justify the setting aside of the order of April 7, 1941. As
already noted, he cannot be said to have been prevented from having a
fair trial. On the contrary, it may be said that plaintiff was rather
indifferent to his interests, because, although he had been absent from
the Philippines since 1910, he never took the trouble or precaution of
informing his brother Mariano of his whereabouts from time to time, and
likewise failed to give any instructions to anybody who could protect
his rights, knowing that, as early as 1933, he was, as regards his
brother Mariano, the nearest of kin who might succeed of his estate in
case of death. The implication that follows is that the
plaintiff-appellant in effect had abandoned his hereditary rights in the
Philippines. It is improbable that, as claimed by him, he had stayed in
the mountains in the United States recuperating from an illness from
1939 to 1942, without any facility for correspondence to the
Philippines, especially when it is recalled that he admitted that he was
not so sick that he could not write if he wanted to. This claim that
there was no mail in the place, is also of little moment, since he could
have commissioned somebody to go to the nearest post office, there
being no pretence that his situation was such that he was cut from all
sorts of communication. At the risk of repetition, much less can Jose
Villanueva be charged with having wished to eliminate
plaintiff-appellant from succeeding to the estate left by Mariano
Varela, as Jose Villanueva himself alleged in his petition filed in the
intestate proceedings that the sole surviving heir of Mariano was Andres
Varela, and he made extensive, inquiries about his whereabouts in the
United States.

The fraud which plaintiff-appellant has attempted to show under the
evidence presented in the court below, consists of misrepresentations
about the existence of Carmelo Bautista as an acknowledged natural child
of Mariano Varela. Assuming that there were falsities on the aspect of
the case, they make out merely intrinsic fraud which, as already noted,
is not sufficient to annul a judgment. And yet, we agree with the trial
court that the evidence preponderates in favor of the conclusion that
Carmelo Bautista had been shown to be an acknowledged natural child of
Mariano Varela.

Appellant likewise tried to prove, through the testimony of Rosario
Rodriguez Varela and Faustino Rodriguez Varela that the latter had
signed the compromise agreement without reading its contents, in the
first place, Rosario Rodriguez Varela and Faustino Rodriguez Varela have
now aligned themselves with appellant’s cause, for the obvious reason
that their share in the inheritance would be much greater if Carmelo
Bautista is excluded. In the second place, the allegation of Rosario
Rodriguez Varela that she did not speak English (and therefore could not
understand the compromise agreement) is negatived by the fact that said
agreement was written in Spanish; and Rosario testified in Spanish. In
the third place, Rosario testified that at the signing only she, her
nephew Rafael Villanueva, and Attys. Cardenas and Casal were present,
and yet her nephew stated that they were accompanied by their lawyer,
Atty. Godofredo del Rosario, and that Josefa Enopia was there once.
Indeed, Godofredo del Rosario and Josefa Enopia signed the agreement,
the first as a witness and the latter as a party. In the fourth place,
Faustino Rodriguez Varela admitted that he spoke Spanish, and he was
therefore in a position to be aware of the contents of the compromise
agreement. In the fifth place, both Rosario Rodriguez Varela and
Faustino Rodriguez Varela had filed their claims as collateral
relatives, were represented by counsel, opposed the appointment of Jose
Villanueva as administrator of the estate; and it is improbable that
they would sign any compromise agreement without being certain of the
true facts. In the last place, the claim of Faustino Rodriguez Varela
that he and Rosario signed the document in a hurry, because Atty.
Cardenas wanted to bring it to Batangas, and that he signed when told by
his attorney that, if something wrong was discovered later, he should
be informed thereof, is apparently without any basis; since the
compromise agreement was not submitted to the court until March 25,
1941, the motion for its approval was not heard until April 7, 1941, and
the agreement had been signed as early as February 14, 1941. Moreover,
it is surprising that, notwithstanding the advice of his counsel to
inform him if something wrong was discovered, nothing was done from 1941
to the date of the filing of appellant’s complaint, although it is
admitted that copy of the agreement was given to Faustino Rodriguez
Varela, at the latest, after having been paid what was stipulated in
said agreement.

Atty. Jose Perez Cardenas explained the steps leading to the signing
of the compromise agreement, and he testified that Atty. Jose
Avanceiia, representing Rosario Rodriguez Varela and Faustino Rodriguez
Varela, was given a draft which finally gave to his two clients P6,000
each, and that at the signing of the document Rosario and Faustino were
accompanied not only by Atty. Avanceiia but also by Atty. del Rosario.
It is significant that neither of said attorneys was placed on the
witness stand by appellant to negative Atty. Cardenas’ testimony.

Appellant presented in evidence, to show that Carmelo was the child
of Josefa Enopia with Gaudencio Bautista, a baptismal certificate
(Exhibit “D”), purporting to show that Carmelo was their leigtimate son.
It appears, however, that on cross-examination, Reverend Father
Eustaquio Daite, who testified that the certificate was an exact copy of
the original, admitted that the word “legitimate” did not appear in the
parochial book. Exhibit “CC” was also presented, a supposed copy of the
original record of the marriage of Josefa and Gaudencio, and yet it
does not contain the notation made by the civil registrar regarding the
annulment of said marriage. These omissions were taken by the trial
court as indications of a false claim on the part of
plaintiff-appellant, and it is not without foundation.

The testimony of Teofilo Gui to the effect that Jose Villanueva had
told him that they should produce a son of the deceased Mariano Varela
so that they could get a portion of his estate, is rather inconsistent
with the frankness of Jose Villanueva in alleging in the petition filed
in intestate proceedings that the sole heir of Mariano was his brother
Andres, plaintiff-appellant. Considering that Teofilo had presented a
claim against the estate of Mariano Varela in the amount of P2,040,
which, in view of the opposition of Jose Villanueva, was reduced to
P300, it is easy to understand why Teofilo could not have been without
any motive for testifying against Jose Villanueva.

Antonio Villanueva, another witness for appellant, declared that he
heard Atty. Cardenas suggest that they should present somebody as a son
of Mariano Varela, because of the claims filed by Rosario Rodriguez
Varela and Faustino Rodriguez Varela. The veracity of this witness is
again doubtful, it appearing that he alleged having heard the
conversation after the war or during the war, when the intestate
proceedings took place in 1940 and 1941 and Carmelo’s claim was filed
long before the war; and that said conversation was in the law office of
Atty. Cardenas and Casal at 34 Escolta, Manila, when it is beyond
question that said office was on the second floor of the National City
Bank Building at Juan Luna, Manila, at the institution of the intestate
proceedings.

Exhibits “F” and “G” were presented by plaintiff-appellant, the
first being an affidavit of Josefa Enopia tending to show that she was
induced to testify before the Court of First Instance of Batangas that
Carmelo Bautista was the son of Mariano Varela, when in fact he was a
child of Gaudencio Bautista; the second being an affidavit of Cristina
Marajas, Carmelo’s widow, to the effect that she was returning the
property she had received after she learned that her deceased husband
Carmelo was not a natural child recognized by Mariano. We are inclined
to give no weight to said exhibits, which have been repudiated by Josefa
and Cristina during the trial.

Appellant argues that he cannot be bound by the compromise agreement
because he was not a party thereto. In answer it is sufficient to state
that the intestate proceedings were in rem and the judgment
therein, declaring Carmelo Bautista the sole heir of the deceased
Mariano Varela, was therefore binding against the whole world. Section
44 (a) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court provides that: “In case
of a judgment or order against a specific thing, or in respect to the
probate of a will, or the administration of the estate of a deceased
person, or in respect to the personal, political, or legal condition or
relation of a particular person, the judgment or order is conclusive
upon the title of the thing, the will or administration, or the
condition or relation of the person; however, the probate of a will or
granting of letters of administration shall only be prima facie
evidence of the death of the testator or intestate.” As aptly commented
by Chief Justice Moran “Subdivision (a) refers to judgments in
rem. Thus, a judgment rendered in connection with a petition for
the probate of a will is binding upon the whole world. A judgment
concerning personal, political, or legal condition or relation of a
particular person, as, for instance, a judgment in intestate or testate
proceedings, declaring who the heirs of the deceased person are, or a
judgment in an application for citizenship, or a judgment adjudging a
person to be a spendthrift, may be considered as a judgment in rem,
binding on the whole world.” (Moran, Comment on the Rules of Court, 2d
Ed. Vol. II, p. 704.)

Even if the plaintiff Andres Varela had appeared and actively taken
part in Special Proceedings No. 3708, the result would have been the
same, in the sense that the recognition by the Court of First Instance
of Batangas of Carmelo Bautista as acknowledged natural child of Mariano
Varela, and accordingly the sole heir of the latter, would also have
excluded appellant from any inheritance, being merely a collateral
relative; and the fraud, if any, that would lead to such recognition,
would merely be intrinsic not justifying the annulment of a final
judgment. The present case should be distinguished from that of Anuran vs.
Aquino, 38 Phil., 29, wherein the estate of the deceased Ambrosio
Aquino was awarded and delivered to the defendant Ana Aquino, because
although the latter and the administrator knew that the plaintiff
Florencia Anuran was the surviving spouse of Ambrosio Aquino, and that
the defendant Ana Aquino was not a legitimate but only a natural
daughter of the deceased sister of Ambrosio, the said Ana Aquino and
administrator, without notice to the widow, and acting in collusion,
fraudulently procured the entry of the order in the administration
proceedings approving the delivery of all the estate to Ana Aquino. It
will be noted that in the Anuran case, the mere appearance of the
plaintiff Florencia Anuran (prevented from having: a trial) changed the
result of the order sought to be annulled.

Plaintiff-appellant invokes the reservation contained in the order
of April 7, 1941, namely, “salvando cualquier derecho que pudiera tener
el hermano ausente, Andres Rodriguez Varela, en el caso que
compareciere.” It appears, however, that said reservation is recited in
the course of the order, and not in the dispositive part declaring
Carmelo Bautista as the acknowledged natural son of Mariano Varela
entitled to succeed to his estate. The dispositive part logically
excludes the recognition of any successional right on the part of the
appellant, and that this was the sense of the order is shown by the fact
that, after Carmelo had put up a bond in the amount of P12,000 to
answer for the obligation in favor of appellant, as covenanted in the
compromise agreement approved by the court, the intestate preceedings
were declared definitely closed. The clause, “en el caso que
compareciere” should merely mean that appearance by the appellant
contemplated therein was to be within the period before the final
closing of the proceedings.

Neither is there anything irregular in the action of the trial court
in making an express finding to the effect that Carmelo Bautista, under
the evidence presented in the present case, was an acknowledged natural
child of the deceased Mariano Valera. As explained in the appealed
judgment, although the order of April 7, 1941 was final and not tainted
with extrinsic fraud, the trial court had to make a pronouncement of
fact under the evidence presented by appellant which, however, had
reference merely to intrinsic fraud.

The book of memoirs, indubitably evidencing Carmelo Bautista’s
recognition by Mariano Varela as the latter’s acknowledged natural
child, is assailed by plaintiff-appellant for not being signed by its
author. This criticism is of no moment, because the entries therein are
in the handwriting of Mariano and proved to be so by the very key
witness for appellant, Teofilo Gui. We have elsewhere pointed out the
reason why the attempt of appellant to have Teofilo Gui, upon being
recalled to the witness stand two months after his direct examination,
explain his damaging testimony, may not be believed. In this
connection,. it may be added that, in at least two instances cited in
the appealed decision, the entries in the boofc have been shown to
conform to the actual facts. We quote from said decision: “For instance,
the last entry on page 26, which reads: El 16 de Octubre de 1920, dia
en que apadrine a Ramon Tarnate, etc., is fully corroborated by the
marriage certificate Exhibit 1-F, wherein it is shown that on October
16, 1920, Ramon Tarnate was married to Mercedes de la Pena, and one of
the sponsors or witnesses to the wedding was Mariano R. Varela. Again,
the second entry appearing on page 25, which reads: Mi buena y querida
Mama fallecio en mi cuarto, sentada en mi butaca,. el 8 de Sept. dia
Domingo y dia de la Correa, las 4:45 p.m. de 1918, y al dia siguiente
fueron sus funerales en este pueblo de Batangas, is also confirmed by
the death certificate of Julia Villanueva, the mother of Mariano Varela,
wherein it is shown that said Julia Villanueva died on September 8,
1918.”

Plaintiff-appellant capitalizes the circumstance that Carmelo had
used the surname Bautista, to show that he was not the child of the
deceased Mariano Varela. Apart from the denial of Josefa Enopia,
Carmelo’s mother, and (Ms. Tina Marajas, his widow, the use of that
surname finds its explanation in the fact that Josefa Enopia was
forcibly married by her father to Gaudencio Bautista to protect her
honor, and it should be an indiscretion on her part to let the people
know, by using the surname Varela, that Carmelo and her other children
are those of Mariano Varela to whom she was not married. The same
explanation controls with reference to the circumstance that Josefa did
not reveal her relations with Mariano until the latter’s Appellant
contends that the trial court erred in not finding that Jose Villanueva
did not include in his inventory in Special Proceedings No. 3708 the
jewelries belonging to appellant and his brother Mariano Varela which
were taken by defendant-appellee Jose Villanueva. According to
appellant, the collection of jewelries and coins referred to was worth
P234,560 as early as 1910, and he even went to the extent of describing
the various items; and in 1933, when appellant learned through his
brother that his mother and sister had died, the estate left by these
two was worth at least P250,000. Appellant’s theory is hard to sustain.
There is evidence to show that in 1912 the properties of Sinforoso
Varela, father of appellant and Mariano Varela, were sold at an
execution sale to satisfy a debt of only P1,500, and this is quite
inconsistent with the existence of the jewels claimed to have been
“looted” by appellee Jose Villanueva. At the time appellant learned of
the death of his mother and sister, he was earning only enough to cover
his expenses and save a little; and yet, if he was certain that there
were such jewels as now claimed by him, he never bothered about
returning to the Philippines to receive his share in the fortune. It
cannot be said that he trusted his relatives in the Philippines, because
no sooner had he learned of the death of his brother Mariano than he
lost no time in returning home. The trend of appellant’s evidence is
also to the effect that appellee Jose Villanueva grabbed the valuable
jewels and coins left by Mariano Varela in the presence of appellant’s
witnesses, like Teofilo Gui, Marcelo Alay and Aurea Eumague. In the
ordinary course of things, if Jose Villanueva really intended to take
possession of Mariano Varela’s jewelries and coins, he would have done
so surreptitiously. Moreover, as elsewhere adverted to, Teofilo Gui’s
claim against the estate of Mariano Varela was opposed by administrator
Jose Villanueva and this left Teofilo with at least some motive for
being hostile to the former. Upon the other hand, Marcelo Alay and Aurea
Eumague might themselves have been biased, in that the first admittedly
had a quarrel with the Villanuevas because the latter ordered the
cutting of Marcelo’s banana plantation which caused him damage and they
told him to leave the house where he was staying, for Mrs. Villanueva
was going to burn it; and the second admittedly was working for and
being supported by the appellant in his house at the time of the trial.
On top of these, although Jose Villanueva submitted to the court the
required inventory of the properties of Mariano Varela as early as
December 14, 1940, no opposition was registered thereto, notwithstanding
the fact that Rosario Rodriguez Varela and Faustino Rodriguez Varela
appeared in the intestate proceedings and even assailed the appointment
of Jose Villanueva as administrator.

We have found nothing wrong in the agreement for attorneys’ fees
between Atty. Jose Perez Cardenas and Josefa Enopia. Atty. Cardenas
represented the interest of Carmelo Bautista, agreeing to bear all the
expenses of the litigation, on condition that he would receive one-half
of everything awarded to Carmelo. The fee is clearly contingent, and as
Atty. Cardenas ultimately received less than P20,000, it cannot be held
that the fee was excessive, much less unconscionable. Indeed, the
arrangement was submitted to and approved by the court.

For the rest, we agree to the appealed decision as regards the
various properties that passed to the defendants-appellees pursuant to
and as a result of the recognition of Carmelo Bautista as the sole heir
of the deceased Mariano Varela, in relation to the compromise agreement
between Josefa Enopia, in representation of Carmelo Bautista, and
Rosario Rodriguez Varela and Faustino Rodriguez Varela. The trial court
has particularized the properties thus conveyed, as follows:

“PROPERTIES CONVEYED TO LUISA VILLANUEVA:

“By virtue of the aforesaid order of the court of April 7, 1941,
and in order to comply with that portion of the order to pay to Rosario
R. Varela and Faustino R. Varela the sum of P6,000 to each, the
administrator filed a motion in court on June 6, 1941, praying the court
to approve the deed of sale over four parcels of land, the first, is
covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 5417 of the Province of
Batangas, registered in the exclusive name of Mariano R. Varela, single
(Exhibit SS); the second and third, are cadastral lots Nos. 871 and 968,
which until now are not covered by any Torrens Title, but their tax
declarations appear in the exclusive name of Mariano Varela (Exhibits
55-1 and TT); and the fourth is covered by Original Certificate of Title
No. 0-139 of the Province of Batangas, in the names of Mariano R.
Varela, single and Andres R. Varela, single, pro-indiviso and in equal
shares (Exhibit GG), and the total assessed value of the said four
parcels is P2,127, which said administrator has executed in favor of
Luisa Villanueva, a defendant in the instant case, for the sum of
P10,000. After consideration by the court of the aforesaid motion, the
same was approved. The administrator received from Luisa Villanueva the
amount of P10,000, which together with an additional sum of P2,000, that
the administrator took from the funds of the estate, making a total of
P12,000, was paid to Rosario R. Varela and Faustino R. Varela, each,
receiving the sum of P6,000, receipt of which was acknowledged by them.
The Original Certificate of Title No. 5417 has already been cancelled by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3271 which is now in the name of
Luisa Villanueva. Luisa Villanueva took immediate possession of the
property through her overseer, treated and dealt with it as her own.
However, when Andres Varela arrived in Batangas (he arrived in August
1946), and with the help of other persons, he took possession of the
property without the consent of its owner, Luisa Villanueva, depriving
her of the use and enjoyment thereof and of the fruits therefrom.

“ADJUDICATED SHARE TO ANDRES E. VARELA IN THE
INTESTATE ESTATE OF MARIANO VARELA:

“In the agreement Exhibit E-1, Andres Varela was given a share in
the estate of his deceased brother equivalent to P12,000 which Carmelo
Bautista agreed to satisfy either in movable or immovable properties in
the event that said Andres Varela would be found alive, and in the order
of April 7, 1941, the court provided that out of the properties which
Carmelo Bautista shall receive as inheritance there shall be reserved
for the use and benefit of Andres Varela properites either movable or
immovable equivalent to the value of P12,000. In compliance with the
said agreement and order of the court, the property described in the
Original Certificate of Title No. 5418 of the Province of Batangas,
registered in the name of Mariano R. Varela and Andres E. Varela
pro-indiviso and in equal shares, the half portion pertaining to Mariano
R. Varela in said land which has been adjudicated to Carmelo Bautista
as part of his inheritance was made to answer of an encumbrance in favor
of Andres Varela for the sum of P12,000, as appears duly noted on the
said title (Exhibits FF and JJJ).

“PROPERTIES CONVEYED TO JOSE PEREZ CARDENAS AND
PORTIONS OF THEM SOLD TO JOSE VIIXANUEVA, JOSE M. CASAL, AND RAFAEL
VILLANUEVA:

“On May 29, 1941, Attorney Cardenas filed a motion in the
intestate proceedings praying that his attorney’s fees as agreed upon in
the contract for attorney’s fees of November 18, 1940 (Exhibit 34-a),
be ordered paid by the heir Carmelo Bautista by delivering to said
Attorney Cardenas one-half of the properties inherited by Carmelo
Bautista from the estate. After hearing thereon, the court, on June 16,
1941, approved the contract for attorney’s fees and it ordered that
one-half of the properties inherited by Carmelo Bautista be delivered to
said Attorney Cardenas. Upon a notarial document dated June 19, 1941
(Exhibit DD-1), executed by the administrator in favor of Attorney Jose
Perez Cardenas, the former conveyed to the latter certain real and
personal properties taken from the share of Carmelo Bautista of his
inheritance in the estate of his deceased father in full payment of Jose
Perez Cardenas attorney’s fees. The real properties consist of four
parcels with the improvement thereon, the first is that covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 41194 of the Province of Batangas,
registered in the exclusive name of Mariano R. Varela, single (Exhibit
RR); the second is that covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
2584 of the Province of Batangas, registered in the exclusive name of
Mariano R. Varela, single (Exhibit PP-12); the third is that portion
pertaining to Mariano R. Varela of an undivided interest of 7/12 share
in the property covered by Original Certificate of Title No, 30998 of
the Province of Batangas, registered in the names of Mariano R. Varela
and Andres E. Varela, in an undivided interest of 5/12 share for Mariano
R. Varela and 7/12 share for Andres E. Varela (Exhibit 44); and the
fourth is that portion pertaining to Mariano R. Varela of an undivided
interest of 7/12 share in the property covered by Original Certificate
of Title No. 30997 of the Province of Batangas, registered in the names
of Mariano R. Varela and Andres E. Varela, in an undivided interest of
7/12 share for Mariano R. Varela and 5/12 snare for Andres E. Varela
(Exhibit EE). And the personal property consists of a gold ring with
small diamonds appraised in the inventory for P60.

“Transfer Certificate of Title No. 41194 was cancelled by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 62344 issued in the name of Jose Perez
Cardenas (Exhibit RR-1), and later sold by him to Victoria G. de Laperal
of Manila, on October 27, 1941, (Exhibit RR-2), and this purchaser is
not a party defendant in the case.

“Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2584 was cancelled by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 3318 issued in the name of Jose Perez Cardenas
(Exhibit PP-13), who caused the subdivision of the land into four lots,
namely, lots 869-A, 869-B, 869-C, and 869-D (Exhibit PP-8). For lot
869-A, a new Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3697 (Exhibit PP-1) was
obtained in the name of Jose Perez Cardenas and portion thereof had been
sold by Cardenas to several purchasers, the sales having been duly
noted on the title, and said purchasers are not parties defendants in
the case (See memorandum of incumbrances on back of title); lot 869-B
was conveyed to Jose M. Casal (Exhibit PP-5), who secured in his name
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3676 (Exhibit PP-2), and later sold by
him to Jose Linatok (Exhibit PP-10), said purchaser having obtained in
his name Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4021 (Exhibit 2-Linatok, and
said last purchaser is a defendant in the case; lot 869-C was conveyed
to Rafael Villanueva (Exhibit PP-6, who secured in his name Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 3678 (Exhibit PP-3), and portions thereof had
been sold to several purchasers, the sales having been duly noted on the
title and said purchasers are not defendants in this case; and lot
869-D was conveyed to Jose Villanueva (Exhibit PP-7), who secured in his
name a new Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3677 (Exhibit PP-4).

“The third parcel of land conveyed by the administrator to Jose
Perez Cardenas in payment of his attorney’s fees was that described as
cadastral lot No. 355 of the municipality of Batangas without reference
to any Torrens Title. It appears, however, that said lot No. 355 with
the improvements thereon is covered by Original Certificate of Title No.
30998 of the Province of Batangas, registered in the names of Mariano
R. Varela and Andres E. Varela in an undivided interest, 7/12 share for
Mariano R. Varela and 5/12 share for Andres E. Varela (Exhibit DD). The
interests and participation of 7/12 of Mariano R. Varela was conveyed to
Jose Perez Cardenas and a new Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3523
was issued in the joint names of Jose Perez Cardenas and Andres Varela
in an undivided interest and in the proportion of %2 for Jose Perez
Cardenas and 5/12 for Andres E. Varela, respecting and preserving the
share of Andres Varela (Exhibit DD-3). The share that accrued to Jose
Perez Cardenas was conveyed by him to Encarnacion Samos (Exhibit DD-5),
and a new Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3800 was issued in the joint
names of Encarnacion Samos and Andres Varela in an undivided interest
and in the proportion of 7/12 for Encarnacion Samos and 5/12 for Andres
Varela (Exhibit DD-2). Encarnacion Samos together with her minor
children Amelia Villanueva and Rafael Villanueva, Jr., are defendants in
this case.

“The fourth and last parcel of land conveyed by the administrator
to Jose Perez Cardenas in payment of his attorney’s fees is described in
the conveyance as cadastral lot No. 361 of the municipality of Batangas
without reference to any Torrens title. It appears, however, that said
parcel of land is covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 30997 of
the Province of Batangas registered in the joint names of Mariano R.
Varela and Andres E. Varela in an undivided interest and in the
proportion of 7/12 for Mariano R. Varela and 5/12 for Andres E. Varela
(Exhibit EE). The share of 7/12 pertaining to Mariano R. Varela was
conveyed to Jose Perez Cardenas, and a new Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 3522 was issued in the joint names of Jose Perez Cardenas and
Andres Varela in an undivided interest and in the proportion of 7/12 and
5/12 respectively (Exhibit II-1).

“PROPERTIES ADJUDICATED TO CARMELO BAUTISTA AS HIS
SHARE IN THE INHERITANCE:

“The properties adjudicated to Carmelo Bautista consists of real
and personal properties as shown in the document Exhibit JJJ:

” (a) The share of Mariano R. Varela in the parcel of
land situated in barrio Calicanto, Municipality of San Juan, Batangas,
described in the Original Certificate of Title No. 5418 registered in
the joint names of Mariano R. Varela and Andres E. Varela pro-indiviso
and in equal shares (Exhibit FF).

“(b) That parcel of land, without Torrens title, declared
under Tax Declaration of, real property No. 63881, situated in barrio
San Jose Batangas, Batangas, in the exclusive name of Mariano R. Varela
(Exhibit VV).

“(c) That parcel of land, without Torrens title situated
in barrio San Jose, Batangas, Batangas, registered in the exclusive name
of Mariano R. Varela under Tax Declaration of real property No. 53205
(Exhibit WW).

“(d) That parcel of land situated in barrio Sambat,
Batangas, Batangas, with an area of 2,264 sq. m., which is a portion of a
larger mass of land described in the Transfer Certificate of Title No.
342 of the Province of Batangas in the names of Ward B. Gregg and others
which had been sold to several persons, among them Mariano R. Varela,
the names of the purchasers are given in the attached list to the deed
of conveyance executed by the said Ward B. Gregg and others (Exhibit
50-A), and the portion sold to Mariano Varela is the same land described
in Tax Declaration of real property No. 59595 in the name of Mariano R.
Varela (Exhibit xx).

“(e) That parcel of land described in the Original
Certificate of Title No. 30494 of the Province of Batangas registered in
the exclusive name of Mariano R. Varela (Exhibit 51), and which is the
same land mentioned in the Tax Declaration of real property No. 48758 in
the name of Mariano R. Varela (Exhibit YY).

“(f) That parcel of land situated in barrio Cuta,
Batangas, Batangas, known as lot No. 102 of the Cadastral Survey of
Batangas covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 140 of the
Province of Batangas (Exhibit HH), in the joint names of Mariano R.
Varela and Andres E. Varela, pro-indiviso and in equal shares. Although
the title contains no notation of the interest pertaining to Carmelo
Bautista, obviously, the interest and participation acquired by Carmelo
Bautista could only be that of his deceased father.

“(g) And those movables, large catties, and a credit
against Doroteo Ylagan for P1,000 mentioned in the document of delivery
Exhibit JJJ.

“PROPERTY CONVEYED TO MELECIO ARCEO:

“Melecio Arceo is made a defendant in this case for having
purchased the cadastral lot No. 14076 situated in the barrio of San
Jose, Batangas, Batangas, containing an area of a little over 40
hectares, from the administrator of the estate of Mariano R. Varela,
deceased, which sale was duly approved by the court in said intestate
proceedings of Mariano R. Varela Civil Case No. 3708 (Exhibits 1, 1-A,
1-B, 1-C and 2-Arceo). The consideration paid by the purchaser Arceo in
the amount of P150, apparently seems to be out of reasonable proportion
to the area of the land sold, but the documents have shown that the
purchaser had certain acquired rights over the land for having purchased
it from another person other than Mariano R. Varela, and to compromise
the conflicting claims, for the land was also claimed by the estate of
the deceased Mariano R. Varela, the administrator sold the interest of
the estate for the amount of P150, which fact was made to appear in the
motion of the administrator when the deed of sale was submitted to the
court for approval (Exhibit 1-Arceo).

“From the documents presented by defendant Arceo, it appears that
by virtue of writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of
Manila on September 6, 1910, upon a judgment obtained by ‘Jose T.
Paterno, Albacea del finado Maximino M. A. Paterno, demandante, contra
Sinforoso R. Varela, demandado’ in Civil Case No. 1330-54, the
Provincial Sheriff of Batangas levied execution upon certain parcels of
land of the defendant Sinforoso R. Varela situated in barrio Bilogo,
Batangas, Batangas, containing an area of about 40 hectares, to satisfy a
money judgment against said Sinforoso R. Varela in the sum of P1,500.
The sale of the attached property of Sinforoso E. Varela was effected on
January 18, 1912, and the judgment debtor having failed to redeem the
property within the time fixed in the law, the Provincial Sheriff of
Batangas executed a definite deed of sale on July 10, 1913, in favor of
Jose T. Paterno, the purchaser at the execution sale. The document also
show that the defendant Arceo had acquired his right, title, and
interest to the land which is now as cadastral lot No. 14076 from the
successors in interest of the said Jose T. Paterno.

“PROPERTY CONVEYED TO JOSE LINATOK:

“Under the amended complaint, Lucia Linatok, the oldest daughter
of Jose Linatok, deceased, and Felisa Vergara, the surviving spouse of
said deceased, for herself and as guardian ad litem of her
minor children Silvestre, Artemio, Adelaida and Julita, all surnamed
Linatok, have been included as parties defendants herein. The reason for
their inclusion is the fact that Jose Linatok in life purchased from
Jose M. Casal lot No. 869-B of the Batangas Cadastre containing an area
of 54,768 square meters, more or less, situated in the Municipality of
Batangas.

“The proofs demonstrate that in the lifetime of Jose Linatok, and
to be more specific on July 4, 1944, he purchased from Jose M. Casal
said lot No. 869-B for the sum of P130,000 of which P4,000 were genuine
Philippine currency and the balance Japanese Military notes, that said
lot is now covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4021 of the
Province of Batangas issued in the name of Jose Linatok, married to
Pelisa Vergara; and Jose M. Casal acquired said lot from Jose Perez
Cardenas who obtained same from the estate of Mariano Varela in Special
Proceeding No. 3708 of this court as part payment of the fees of said
Attorney Jose Perez Cardenas; that said lot was a part of a greater mass
of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2584 of the
Province of Batangas, registered in the exclusive name of Mariano R.
Varela, and was accounted as property of the deceased in the inventory
submitted by the administrator in the estate of Mariano Varela,
deceased; that prior to the sale to Jose Linatok, said lot was covered
by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3676 of the Province of Batangas in
the name of Jose M. Casal, free from any lien or encumbrance; that the
Torrens title No. 4821 in the name of Jose Linatok, married to Felisa
Vergara, is also free from any lien or encumbrance whatsoever; that Jose
Linatok died in the year 1945, leaving as his surviving heirs the
defendants Felisa Vergara and their children Lucia, Silvestre, Artemio,
Adelaida and Julita; that due to the last war, Jose Linatok in life and
his heirs after his death were not able to take immediate possession of
said property, and said defendants were able to take possession only
after the liberation of Batangas from the Japanese and remained in
possession thereof for several months only, because shortly after the
arrival of plaintiff in Batangas he forced the tenants in the land in
question to quit paying their respective monthly rentals to defendants
herein, but instead to him; that actually plaintiff is in possession of
said lot No. 869-B.

“From the proofs, the court finds that Jose Linatok in whose name
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4021 of the land records of the
Province of Batangas now stands is a purchaser for value and in good
faith, and that his surviving heirs, defendants herein, have been
deprived by the plaintiff of their possession thereof.”

The trial court correctly hold that, in respect of certain transfers
involved in the litigation, the different purchasers paid valuable
consideration and on the faith of the titles covering the properties,
and accordingly they are purchasers for value and in good faith. Upon
the whole, we find the appealed decision to be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, unaffected by the fact that a part of the
lost testimony had been retaken.

Wherefore, the appealed judgment is affirmed and it is so ordered
with costs against the plaintiff-appellant.

Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and
Concepcion, JJ., concur.