SOLEDAD L. DE MIRAFLORES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. JOSE Y. HILADO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

This is an appeal taken by Soledad L. de Miraflores
from an order issued by the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental on December 5, 1959 in Civil Case No. 5499 dismissing her
complaint against Jose Y. Hilado and Cirilo Abrasia, on the ground of
lack of cause of action.

Appellant commenced the present action against appellees for specific performance and damages. The
complaint alleged that appellees Jose Y. Hilado and Cirilo Abrasia, on December 9,1964 and March 29, 1955,
respectively, sold to appellant sugar quota rights adhered to the Victorias Milling Co., Inc. (Plantation Audit No. 28-324) as
evidenced by the written contracts Annexes “A” and “B” attached to the
complaint; that when appellant presented said documents to the Victorias Milling Co., Inc. for registration, the latter
refused to register them on the ground that the vendors had failed, to register
their rights to the sugar quotas subject matter of the sales with the Register
of Deeds as required by Executive Order No. 873; that on June 1, 1959,
appellant, thru counsel, wrote appellee Hilado informing him of the refusal and requesting him to
perfect his right to the sugar quota so that she could in turn register the same
in her name (Annex “D” of the complaint); that as a result of appellees‘ failure to effect the transfer of the sugar quota
rights in favor of appellant despite her letter of demand, the latter had to
file the complaint to compel them to comply with their obligations under the
contracts mentioned heretofore and to pay her damages and attorney’s fees.

Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
on the grounds of (1) lack of cause of action and (2) non-joinder of indispensable parties.

On December 5, 1959, the
lower court issued the appealed order dismissing the complaint for lack of cause
of action, ruling as follows:

“En la demands no se alega que los demandados, por-medio de los contratos Anexos ‘A’ y ‘B’ se hayan obligado a efectuar el registro
del trespaso en los archivos de la Victorias Milling
Co., Inc. por lo que no
existen terminos habiles para concluir de que los demandados hayan infringido los terminos de los repitodos contratos. De hecho, tal condicion no se ha incluido en
ninguno de los contratos.”

The issue before Us is merely whether the
allegations of the complaint constitute a sufficient cause of action against
appellees.

The record discloses that In Civil Case No. 2150 of the Court of First
Instance of Negros Occidental entitled “Tupas vs. Soledad Miraflores, et
al. involving Lot No. 492 of the Cadastral Survey of Cadiz, Negros Occidental, covered by TCT No, T-857 (T-18669),
otherwise known as Hda.
“Banco“, Plantation Audit No. 28-324 of the
milling district of Victorias, Negros Occidental, appellee Hilado, as counsel for plaintiff therein Marcos Tupas, had earned, by way of contingent attorney’s fees, 30%
of the sugar quota allocated to said hacienda in the amount of 1,665.68 piculs and 30 hectares thereof as evidenced by a contract
entitled “Settlement of Attorney’s Fees” executed by and between Hilado and Tupas on June 20, 1952
in the City of Bacolod, and acknowledged before Atty.
Geranlo Pandan, Notary
Public for said city, as Doc. No. 431, page No. 90, Book No. X, series of 1952 of his Notarial
Register. Hilado sold one-half of his rights and
interests in said sugar quota (832.84 piculs) to his
co-appellee Atty. Cirilo
Abrasia on June 21, 1952 by means of a public document duly
acknowledged before Notary Public Cesar S, Nessia on
November 18, 1954, as Doc.
No. 213, Page 44, Book I of his Notarial Register. By
virtue of the contract Annex “A”, Hilado sold the
remaining one-half of his sugar quota to appellant Miraflores (832.84 piculs) for the
sum of P9,994.08. On March 29, 1955, appellee Abrasia sold to appellant the sugar quota of 832.84 piculs which he had purchased from Hilado.

Upon the facts alleged in the complaint, it appears to be appellant Hilado’s duty to have the document thru which he acquired
the sugar quota of 1,665.68 piculs from Marcos Tupas, properly registered, together with the Deed of Sale
of one-half thereof he executed in favor of his co-appellee and the Deed of Sale he executed in favor of
appellant over the remaining one-half. Similarly, it appears to be the clear
duty of Abrasia to cause the registration of the Deed
of Sale he executed in favor of appellant conveying to her that portion of Hilado’s quota he had previously acquired from the latter.
As appellant’s vendors, both appellees are in duty
bound under their respective contracts, to do everything requisite and necessary
to accomplish the registration of the transfer of said quota to appellant in the
books and records of the Central, for, without such registration, her rights may
be jeopardized. As, according to the complaint and the document attached
thereto, appellees have refused to comply with their
aforesaid duty, we are of the opinion, and so hold that said pleading states a
sufficient cause of action against them and in favor of appellant.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is set aside and the record in this
case is remanded below for further proceedings.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon J.P. and
Zaldivar, JJ.,
concur.