ROGACIANO ARMENTIA AND ANACLETA SUELO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. MAYOR FRANCISCO TOBIAS, REPRESENTING THE MUNICIPALITY OF CABATUAN, EMILIANO DEL CAMPO, MUNICIPAL TREASURER, AND…

Defeated in the Municipal Court of Cabatuan,
Province of Iloilo, and again thwarted by the Court of First Instance of
Iloilo, plaintiffs, in their appeal in forma pauperis,
seek the reversal of the last named court’s order dismissing their complaint
which prays that they be awarded damages for the seizure and public auction
sale of a carabao which they claim to be theirs but
for which they hold an admittedly falsified certificate of ownership of large
cattle not in their name but in the name of one Marcelino
Mayormente.

The facts are not disputed. 
On June 23, 1962,
defendant chief of police seized from plaintiffs a male carabao,
eight years old, with municipal and owner’s brands of CB and M,
respectively.  Also seized was covering
Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle No. 3180194 issued on May 17, 1957 in the name of Marcelino Mayormente.  This seizure concededly was made upon the
authority of a municipal ordinance of the Municipality
of Cabatuan,
enacted in pursuance of Sections 538 and 540 of the
Revised Administrative Code.  On July 25, 1962, defendant municipal
treasurer caused to be sold at public auction the aforesaid carabao
for P285 to one Elias Gallar.  That sale was later approved by the Provincial
Board of Iloilo.

1.  Plaintiffs aver that
they acquired the carabao in question sometime in
1959 from Marcelino Mayormente
in exchange for an old carabao.  Ownership Certificate 3180194 heretofore
mentioned was turned over to them.  That
this ownership certificate is falsi­fied is beyond debate.  On this point, the lower court’s finding not
disputed but on the contrary admitted by plaintiffs is this:  “To resolve whether the plaintiff
acquired the ownership of the carabao in question, we
examined plaintiff’s Exhibit A [Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle
3180194 in the name of Marcelino Mayormente]
and we found therein erasures which can be clearly seen with a naked eye.  The name Marcelino Mayormente after the phrase – ‘This
certificate witnesseth that Mr. Marcelino
Mayormente‘ – has been written over an erasure of the
said space and so with the signature of Marcelino Mayormente over the lines ‘signature of owner’ [which] is
also written over an erasure.  Also,
after the phrase ‘brand of owner’ the mark there M is also over an
erasure.  We noted that all these
superimposed writings are written in a different indelible pencil and
distinctly different from the other writings in Exhibit A.  Also at the back of said Exhibit A, we
noticed erasures which could clearly be seen on both figures of the carabao repre­senting their cowlicks.  These erasures clearly show that this
certificate was altered and falsified.”

The original of the said Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle
3180194, Exhibit B, on file with the office of the municipal treasurer of Cabatuan, conclusively proves the fact that the copy
thereof seized from plaintiffs’ possession was falsified.  In that Exhibit B, it appears that the owner
was Hilario Torquemada, not
Marcelino Mayormente; that
the carabao described therein was one and one-half
years old and the brand owner is H, contrary to what appears in plaintiffs’
document, Exhibit A, which says that the carabao was
three years old and the brand of the owner M. 
Then the description of the cowlicks of the carabao in Exhibit B are different from those found
at the back of Exhibit A.

In addition, there is the fact that plaintiff Rogaciano
Armentia filed a complaint for falsification of
public document against Marcelino Mayormente
for having falsified said Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle 3180194.

2.  It would appear then
that the sole question that presents – itself is
whether or not, on the face of the foregoing facts, the seizure and public
auction of the carabao by the local officials of Cabatuan give plaintiffs a cause to complain for damages.

The question here presented is by no means new.  Landa vs.
Tobias (1968), 23 SCRA 928, was decided by this Court on facts
strikingly similar.  The defendants now
before us were also defendants in the Landa
case.  There was a seizure of a carabao which was in the possession of therein plaintiff Ciriaco Landa.  There, as here, the date of the seizure is June 23, 1962.  The date of the auction sale is likewise the
same – July 25, 1962.  Landa’s proof of
ownership of the carabao was a certificate that was
also falsi­fied.  It was likewise issued
in the name of Marcelino Mayormente,
the same name appearing in the certificate of ownership possessed by plaintiffs
herein, the Armentias.  In Landa,
the registered owner appearing on the certificate on file in the municipal
treasurer’s office was also different – a certain Pantaleon
Elvas.  The
arguments posited in Landa are along the same
lines as the arguments presented by plaintiffs here.  In Landa,
the Court of First Instance of Iloilo dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for
damages.  And we affirmed.

We need but reproduce in haec
verb the pertinent portions of our decision in the Landa
case.  Speaking thru Mr. Chief Justice
Roberto Concepcion, we there said:

“Plaintiff maintains that the lower court erred in holding
that he had no title to the carabao, for
non-compliance, on his part, with the provisions of the Revised Administrative
Code, requiring the registration of cattle, prescribing the procedure for the
transfer thereof, regulating amendments to certificates of ownership, and
establishing the necessity of registration and issuance of a certificate of
transfer in order that the same may be valid. 
He invokes the provision of the Civil Code, governing contracts in
general, to the effect that ‘contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form
they may have been entered into provided all essential requisites for their
validity are present.’ In addition, to the essential requisites specified in
the Civil Code, the Revised Administrative Code prescribes, however, another
requisite, as regards the transfer of title to the cattle, namely, the registration
of said transfer and the issuance to the transferee of the corresponding
certificate of transfer, neither of which has been proven in the case at bar.

Although plaintiff claimed to have the
aforementioned certificate of transfer, but he did not produce the same.  In fact, plaintiff could not possibly have
such certificate, for the carabao was allegedly
conveyed to him by Marcelino Mayormente,
whereas the registered owner is Pantaleon Elvas – and plaintiff knew this fact – and there is no
competent proof that Elvas had ever assigned the
animal to Mayormente. 
Again, the complaint for swindling filed against Mayormente
indicates that the carabao did not belong to
him.  Regardless of the aforementioned
provisions of the Revised Administrative Code, the title to the carabao could not have passed, therefore, to Landa, in consequence of his alleged transaction with Mayormente, who had no such title.  It may not be amiss to note that Mayormente might be no more than a figment of the
imagination, for he has neither taken the witness stand nor been found.”

After we described the alterations on the certificate of ownership
presented by Landa, we ruled that:

“Under these circumstances, it is clear that the policemen had
reasonable grounds to suspect that plaintiff’s possession of the carabao was unlawful, as well as to seize the animal and
deliver the same to the municipal treasurer, as provided in Section 538 of the
Revised Administrative Code.  Pursuant
thereto and to Section 540 of the same Code, said municipal treasurer had, not
only the authority, but, also, the ‘duty’ to issue, post and cause to be served
a notice of the seizure or taking of said animal, and, if the owners thereof
‘fail to present themselves within the time specified in the
notice and prove title to the animals taken or seized as
aforesaid,’ notice of such fact shall be given by said officer to the provincial
board, ‘which shall order said animals to be sold at public auction,’ after
giving the notice prescribed in said legal provision.  The ‘purchaser at such sale shall’ – in the
language of Section 540 – ‘receive a good and indefeasible title to the animal
sold.’

Even if plaintiff were hypothetically the true owner of the carabao in question, his only remedy was, accordingly, to
claim it before the municipal treasurer and prove to the latter his
(plaintiff’s) title thereto, either prior to or at the time of the auction
sale.  Not having done so, plaintiff can
not now make such claim judicially and try to prove his title – which, after
all, he has failed to establish – much less seek indemnity from the public officers
who, by reason of their official duties, had a hand in the seizure and sale of
the carabao.

Considering the stipulation of the parties herein, to the effect
that said sale had been ‘duly approved by the Provincial Board,’ apart
from the legal presumption ‘that official duty has been regularly performed’ we
must assume that defendants herein had complied with the requirements of the
legal provisions above referred to, and, conse­quently, they can not be held
liable for the aforesaid seizure and sale.

Plaintiff further alleges that the lower court erred in not
declaring that the public auction of the carabao in
question as ‘astray’ is against the law, because the animal was taken or seized
from him, not found astray.  This
pretense is groundless.  It is not borne
out by paragraph 3 of the partial stipulation of facts cited by him in support
thereof.  The sale at public auction was
held pursuant to the aforementioned Section 540, captioned ‘Sale of unclaimed’
– not astray – ‘animal,’ although referring to ‘all estray
and all animals recovered from thieves or taken by peace officers from
persons unlawfully or reasonably suspected of being unlawfully in possession of
the same’ – which are the subject-matter of Section 538 – the owners of which
‘fail to present themselves within the time fixed in the notice and prove title
to the animals taken or seized as aforesaid.’ Such is precisely,
the situation obtaining in the case at bar.”^[1]

No reason exists why we should break away from the Landa pronouncements.  We are not to lose sight of the purpose of the
legal provisions requiring the branding and registration of ownership of large
cattle.  As early as 1910, we have said
in U.S. vs. Toribio, 15 Phil.
85, 89, that:  “The Act primarily
seeks to protect the ‘large cattle’ of the Philippine Islands against theft and
to make easy the recovery and return of such cattle to their proper owners,
when lost, strayed, or stolen.  To this
end it provides an elaborate and compulsory system for the separate branding
and registry of ownership of all such cattle throughout the Islands, whereby
owners are enabled readily and easily to establish their title; it prohibits
and invalidates all transfers of large cattle unaccompanied by certificates of
transfer issued by the proper officer in the municipality where the contract of
sale is made; and it provides also for the disposition of estrays
and animals recovered from the possession of thieves or persons unlawfully in
possession, so as to protect the rights of the true owners.  All this, manifestly, in
order to make it difficult for any one but the rightful owner of such cattle to
retain them in his possession or to dispose of them to others.”

3.  There is no question
in our mind that upon the provisions of Section 538 of the Revised
Administrative Code, the carabao in dispute was
lawfully seized by defendant chief of police from plaintiffs who were
“unlawfully or reasonably suspected of being unlawfully in the
possession” thereof.  Nor should
there be any quibbling as to the right of defendant municipal treasurer to
dispose of said carabao pursuant to Section 540 of
the Revised Administrative Code, as we have ruled in Landa
vs. Tobias. For, the certificate of ownership there presented in
the first place is falsified on its face. 
To be stressed at this point are the provisions of Section 527 of the
Revised Administrative Code, thus: 
“Erasures, interlineations, or amendments in certificates of
registry or transfer shall be presumed to be invalid unless noted over the
signature of the official or persons issuing or executing the same.” Appro­priate
it is to state that the alterations superimposing the name of Marcelino Mayormente on the
certificate in question do not bear the signatures required in Section 527
aforesaid. ‘Those alterations, therefore, are invalid, no evidence to the
contrary having been adduced.  We are
thus hard put to conclude that Marcelino Mayormente is the legal owner of the carabao.  Not being the owner, he had nothing to
transfer to plaintiffs.  And, as we have
observed in Landa, plaintiff Rogaciano Armentia’s complaint
against Marcelino Mayormente
for falsification of public document “indicates that the carabao did not belong to him.”

Furthermore, there is Section 529, Revised Administrative Code,
which stands in plaintiffs’ way. It states that “[n]o transfer of large
cattle shall be valid unless the same is registered and a certificate of
transfer obtained as herein provided.” Gauged by this requirement, the
transfer to the Armentias of the carabao
cannot be valid and, in the words of this Court in Veloso
vs. Becerra, 34 Phil. 334, 335, “conveyed no title” to
them.  For, such transfer is not
registered; and they did not obtain a certificate of transfer in their names or
in that of either of them.^[2]
Under the circumstances, of course, this transfer could not have been
possible.  Because no legal transfer from
the registered owner, Hilario Torquemada,
to Marcelino Mayormente or
to plaintiffs, for that matter, was proved. 
At any rate, as was ruled in the Landa
decision, plaintiffs’ remedy was to claim the carabao
before the municipal treasurer and prove their title thereto, prior to or at
the time of the auction sale.  Which they did not.

We thus conclude that the Armentias
have not duly established their ownership to the carabao;
and that it was only in pursuance of a legal duty that defendant local
officials seized the carabao and caused it to be
sold.  They may not be held liable for
damages to plaintiffs.

FOR THE REASONS GIVEN, the lower court’s order of December 23, 1964 dismissing
plaintiffs’ complaint is hereby affirmed.

No costs allowed.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
and Barredo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
At pp. 931-933

^[2] See:  Section 517, Revised Administrative Code;
Ramos vs. Hijos de I. De la Rama, 15 Phil. 554, 557.