G.R. No. 11539. May 19, 1958
ARING BAGOBA, PEDRO DURANO, LOPEZ SUGA, BUAT ONGIO, JAIME ANGA AND MAURA ANGA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF DAVAO, AND JOS…
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
brother Lopes Suga, her nephews Buat Ongio and Jaime Anga, and her niece Maura
Anga, to set aside the order of execution of the decision against them, pending
appeal, dated October 17, 1956, and to compel respondent Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Davao to approve the record on appeal without further
amendment, such as the inclusion of certain pleadings and documents suggested
and required by the winning party, and which petitioners considered to be
unnecessary.
For purposes of this petition, the following facts gathered from the petition
itself and its annexes and the answer filed by counsel of respondents and its
annexes, may be stated as follows: Obot, presumably a non-Christian, had one
brother, Lopez Suga (Bagobo) and two sisters named Aring (Bagobo) and Antap
(Bagobo), the latter upon her death leaving three children, now petitioners,
Buat Ongio, Jaime Anga, and Maura Anga. Obot cohabited with a Japanese subject,
named Hasuhiro Nakamura, without the benefit of marriage, and from their union
was born an only child, named Jose (Nakamura) Original, on March 30, 1924. Obot
died in 1928, leaving two parcels of land, Lot No. 158, with an area of about 15
hectares, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 573, and Lot No. 162,
with an area of about 21 hectares, covered by Patent No. V-1007, and Original
Certificate of Title No. 141. Lot No. 162 was applied for as a free patent by
Obot, but the patent and original certificate of title covering the same were
issued after her death and in favor of her heirs. Both lots are included in the
Guianga Cadastre, Davao.
In 1946, Lopez Suga and his sister Aring executed affidavits to the effect
that their sister Obot died without issue, and that they were her only heirs;
that although Obot cohabited with Nakamura, the two were never married; that
Lopez Suga was renouncing in favor of his sister Aring any right or interest
which he may have in the properties of Obot. On the basis of these affidavits,
Aring executed another affidavit adjudicating to herself Lot No. 158,
above-mentioned. On the basis of this adjudication, Original Certificate of
Title No. 573 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 193 was issued
in her name.
On December 15, 1950, Aring, her brother Lopez and their nephews and niece
Buat Ongio, Jaime Anga and Maura Anga, executed a deed of extrajudicial
partition of Lot No. 162 and divided said parcel among themselves. It would
appear that all of them had taken possession of both Lots 158 and 162 in the
year 1946, that is to say, after liberation.
It would further appear that upon the death of Obot in 1928, her common law
husband Hasuhiro Nakamura took charge of her properties and secured an
appointment as a guardian of the person and properties of their child, Jose
(Nakamura) Original, and he had been rendering Recount of his guardianship and
administration to the court until he died in 1945. It will be noticed that the
brother, sister, nephews and niece of Obot took possession of her properties,
particularly Lots 158 and 162, after the death of Hasuhiro Nakamura.
After Liberation, or rather, about the year 1945, Jose (Nakamura) Original
was taken to Japan by the United States Army of occupation to act as
interpreter. In the meantime, presumably considering him as a Japanese subject,
and therefore, an enemy alien, the Enemy Property Custodian proceeded to take
charge of the properties left by Obot, and naturally inherited by her son, Jose,
and on April 4, 1946, Captain Jose Phelon of the Enemy Property Custodian wrote
to Pedro Durano, husband of Aring and who was administering her properties,
telling him that in occupying Lot No. 158, he was trespassing on land under the
custody of his organization, and asking him to leave the property with a warning
that otherwise, his continued possession would lead to “consequences very
serious for you”.
Still in Japan and employed by the United States Army as interpreter, Jose
(Nakamura) Original, on August 9, 1951 executed a general power of attorney in
favor of Brigido R. Valencia, authorizing him to take charge of his properties
and transact all business, even to bring court action in connection therewith.
On the basis of said authority, the present case was filed in the Court of First
Instance of Davao on behalf of Jose, to recover Lots 158 and 162 and for
damages. After trial, respondent Judge Enrique A. Fernandez rendered the
decision dated August 30, 1956, whose execution the petitioners now seek to
stop. The decision ordered the defendants, petitioners herein, to deliver to the
plaintiff or his legal representative, the two lots in question, with the
improvements thereon. In said decision, the trial court found the facts we have
already stated. It further found that the petitioners herein knew all along that
Jose was the son of Obot, and therefore, inherited all her properties, including
the two lots in question; that Aring and her brother Lopez Suga made false
statements and representations in their affidavits to the effect that Obot died
without issue; that petitioners herein even admitted having seen not only Jose,
but his father, Hasuhiro Nakamura, on the properties in question as late as
1945; that although petitioners have introduced some improvements on the lots in
question in the form of coconut, coffee, and durian trees, nevertheless, they
were possessors in bad faith, not only because they knew that the lots did not
belong to them, but because said improvements were introduced after the demand
had been made on them to leave said properties. These are without doubt the
reasons why after the rendition of the judgment, respondent Judge granted the
petition of Jose for the immediate execution of said judgment on the ground that
the appeal being prosecuted by the petitioners herein was merely for purposes of
delay, this aside from the claim of plaintiff Jose that the appeal was
frivolous. It is of interest to note that in his order of October 17, 1956,
directing the issuance of a writ of execution of his judgment pending appeal,
respondent Judge stated that during the hearing of plaintiff’s motion for
execution, defendants tacitly admitted that the land in litigation belonged to
plaintiff, but claimed that the valuable improvements on the land were
introduced by them in good faith. The order further said that defendants
promised to deliver the land to plaintiff on his return to the Philippines from
Japan, but said order also stated that to prevent plaintiff’s return to the
Philippines, they had filed charges in the Philippine Consulate in Tokyo to the
effect that plaintiff, during the occupation of the Philippines by Japan, became
a member of the Japanese Military Police (Kempetai) and as such, had committed
all kinds of crimes, when in fact, they knew all along that all their charges
were false.
On the basis of what we have already stated, we do not hesitate to say that
the order for the issuance of a writ of execution of the judgment was properly
and correctly issued.
The other cause of action of the present petition
is that, at the instance of plaintiff Jose, respondent Judge had by order
required petitioners herein to amend the record on appeal by adding certain
pleadings and documents which petitioners consider to be unnecessary. We are
inclined to agree with petitioners in this regard. The pleadings filed on behalf
of Jose in that case, such as, the complaint, were amended more than once, and
naturally, defendants therein were obliged to amend their answers. Petitioners
now claim, apparently with reason, that there is no need for including in the
record on appeal the original pleadings which were later amended. Again, the
pleadings to the inclusion of the Philippine National Bank as an additional
party, in the opinion of petitioners, have no place in the record on appeal, for
the reason that said Bank to which the properties in question had been
encumbered, despite the filing of a notice of lis pendens, has lost interest in
the case for the reason that the obligation secured by said encumbrance had
already been liquidated.
In view of the foregoing, the petition as regards the annulment of the order
for immediate execution of the judgment of the trial court is denied. With
respect to the amendment of the record on appeal, the trial court is hereby
advised and directed to again go over its record of the case and giving it full
discretion, to determine for inclusion in the record on appeal only those
pleadings and documents which are strictly necessary for the enlightenment and
consideration of the case by the appellate court, in order to avoid unnecessary
expense. The writ of preliminary injunction heretofore issued is hereby
dissolved. No costs.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,
Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.