G.R. No. L-18976. February 29, 1964

DAMASO PEÑARA AND JULITA TIMTIMAN, PETITIONERS AND APPELLEES, VS. THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL, RESPONDENT, SOFIA S. BOSTON AND THE HEIRS OF WILLIAM BOSTON, OPPOSITORS AND APP…

Decisions / Signed Resolutions February 29, 1964 LABRADOR, J.:
Download PDF


LABRADOR, J.:


On November 15, 1960 the spouses Damaso Peñara and Julita Timtiman
requested the Register of Deeds of Rizal to register a deed of sale of
two parcels of land, which deed of sale was executed by Sofia S. Boston
on August 25, 1942 of two parcels of land covered by Original
Certificate of Title No. 444. This title contains the following
“whereas” clause:

“WHEREAS, SOFIA S. BOSTON, of legal age, Filipina,
married to William Boston, possessing all the qualifications required
by law in the premises, has fully complied with and consummated all the
conditions, requirements, and provisions of Chapter VII of Act No. 2874
of the Philippine Legislature, and the Acts supplemental thereto,
providing for the granting of free patent to native settlers,***”

The dispositive portion of the “granting” clause is as follows:

“NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW WE, That by authority of the
provisions of the Act of Congress of the United States, entitled, ‘An
Act to declare the purpose of the people of the United States of
America as to the future political status of the people of the
Philippine Islands, and to provide a more autonomous government for
these Islands,’ approved August 29, 1916, there is hereby granted unto
the said SOFIA S. BOSTON the tract of land above described.”

And the last paragraph reads:

“TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said tract of land, with
the appurtenances thereunto of right belonging, unto the said SOFIA S.
BOSTON and to her heir or heirs and assigns forever. * * * ” The
petition for the registration of the sale was denied for the reason
that although the deed contained the signature of “W. S. Boston”, there
is no indication that the same is the signature of the husband, and
furthermore, the deed does not contain the ratification thereof of the
husband.

So, an appeal from the denial was made to the Commissioner of Land
Registration, who held that the language or terms of the title indicate
that the property was given exclusively to Sofia S. Boston, as it is
not shown that at the time of the issuance of the patent William Boston
was a native of the Philippines who could qualify for a free patent
under the Public Land Act; and that under Article 140 of the New Civil
Code the registered owner of the land subject of the sale (a married
woman) may freely alienate or encumber the same without the
participation of her husband on the sale.

The oppositors to the petition appeal to this Court against the
ruling of the Commissioner of Land Registration, claiming that the
property is conjugal property of the spouses Boston because as the
title was issued in the name of Sofia S. Boston married to William
Boston, it is presumed to be conjugal, having been acquired during
marriage.

The title is a free patent which is granted only to occupants for
their continued occupation and cultivation. Had the land been acquired
by virtue of the joint efforts of husband and wife, the patent should
have so stated. But it is granted to the wife only. We presume that as
the husband is not joined as co-owner, the land must have been acquired
thru the occupation of the wife alone at the time when she was yet
unmarried. The land has, therefore, been considered as the wife’s
exclusive property.

But even admitting that the property is conjugal, because at the
time of issuance of the title the wife was already married, the
authenticity of the signature of W. S. Boston is not questioned and may
therefore, be considered as his true signature. The title declares that
the owner is married to William Boston. The person who signed the deed
as W. S. Boston, jointly with Sofia S. Boston, must be her husband. His
unquestioned signature is proof of his participation in the sale. As
the signature’s authenticity is not denied, there is no need of a
ratification thereof by a notary public.

Wherefore, the ruling of the Commission is hereby affirmed, with costs against oppositors-appellants.

So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepción, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.