G.R. No. 14309. June 30, 1960
CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC., PETITIONER, VS. FELISA FELIAS, RESPONDENT.
MONTEMAYOR, J.:
Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. No. 14967-R, modifying that of the trial
court by declaring plaintiff Felias exclusive owner of Lot No. 107,
Cadastral Survey of the City of Agusan, instead of Vicente Dysekco; by
affirming said decision in so far as it declared Caltex (Philippines)
Inc., absolute owner of the coconut land described in paragraph 10 (b) of the amended complaint.
The facts of the case as found by the Court of Appeals and which we
adopt for purposes of this review, are as follows: Lot No. 107
aforementioned was originally owned by the spouses Juliano Felias and
Eulalia Felion. On March 31, 1928, said spouses donated said Lot No.
107 to their daughter, Felisa Felias, herein respondent, as a result of
which Original Certificate of Title No. 645 was cancelled and Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 97 was issued in lieu thereof, in favor of
Felisa Felias, making said lot her paraphernal property.
On March 26, 1941, the trial court (Court of First Instance of Cebu)
rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 1527, entitled Texas Company
(Phil.,) Inc., plaintiff, vs. Simeon Sawamoto, defendant,
(husband of respondent Felias) ordering the latter to pay plaintiff the
sum of P661.94, with legal interest from the date complaint, was filed,
plus attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the award, and the costs. A
writ of execution was issued to the provincial sheriff who levied upon
Lot No. 107, together with the improvements thereon described in
paragraph II of the amended complaint and a small parcel of coconut
land located in Look, Nasipit, Agusan, and oh August 20, 1941, sold
them at public auction to the Texas Company, now petitioner herein
Caltex (Philippines) Inc. The corresponding certificate of sale was
annotated on the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 97 on August
21, 1941. Upon the expiration of the one year period without judgment
debtor Sawamoto making the redemption, on January 25, 1947, the
provincial sheriff executed in favor of Caltex (Philippines) Inc., a
final deed of sale which was duly recorded on the reconstituted
Transfer Certificate of Title No. RTV65 (97) on November 26, 1947.
On February 3, 1950, Felisa Felias (herein respondent) filed the
present action to declare herself exclusive owner of the two parcels in
question; on January 4, 1955, after hearing, the trial court rendered
judgment as follows:
“Considering all the foregoing, the Court renders judgment and declares:
“(1)
The contract of sale with the right to repurchase (Exhibit C) the true
intention of the parties, and Lot No. 107, now covered by transfer
certificate of title No. RT-65 (97) of the Register of Deeds of the
province of Agusan, the exclusive property of defendant Vicente Dysekco;“(2) The sale at auction by the provincial sheriff of Agusan in favor of the CALTEX of lot No. 107 null and void;
“(3)
The CALTEX as exclusive owner of the small parcel of coconut land
located at sitio Look, municipality of Nasipit, Agusan covered by tax
declaration No. 3602 (Exhibit 14, CALTEX); and“(4) The
complaint dismissed with costs against the plaintiff. “The register of
deeds of Agusan is ordered to cancel transfer certificate of title No.
RT-63(97) in the name of Felisa Felias married to Simeon Sawamoto and
to issue in lieu thereof another transfer certificate of title in the
name of Vicente Dysekco upon payment of the required fees.”
Plaintiff Felisa Felias as well as defendant Caltex (Philippines)
Inc. appealed the foregoing judgment to the Court of Appeals which
court rendered the decision sought to be reviewed, the dispositive
portion of which reads:
“In view of all the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is hereby modified; and judgment is hereby rendered—
“1.
Declaring that plaintiff is the owner of Lot No. 107 of the Cadastral
Survey of Nasipit; and ordering the Register of Deeds to cancel: entry
No. 234 referring to the sale with pacto de retro; entry No.
1951, notice of levy under attachment; entry No. 2050, notice of levy
under execution; entry No. 2147, sheriff’s certificate of sale; entry
No. 114, sheriff’s deed of sale in favor of Caltex (Phil.) Inc., dated
January 28, 1947; entry No. 121, affidavit of consolidation of
ownership, all appearing on the memorandum of encumbrances at the back
of Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-65(97) of the land records of
Agusan; and“2. Declaring that Caltex (Phil.) Inc. is the
exclusive owner of the small parcel of coconut land located in sitio
Look, municipality of Nasipit, Agusan, described in paragraph X(b) of the amended complaint.”
Petitioner Caltex (Philippines) Inc. makes the following assignment of errors:
“ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
“I. The Court of Appeals erred in failing to declare that even if lot No. 107 was paraphernal, it became conjugal ipso facto upon construction of the conjugal house thereon.
“II.
The Court of Appeals erred in failing to declare that even if lot No.
107 is paraphernal, it is nevertheless subject to levy of execution in
enforcing just obligation of plaintiff’s husband, Simeon Sawamoto.“III.
The Court of Appeals erred by failing to declare that estoppel thru
negligence and actuations bar the plaintiff from claiming ownership of
lot No. 107 as against defendant CALTEX.”
The only issues involved in this appeal is the status and ownership
of Lot 107 of the cadastral survey of the City of Agusan at the time it
was levied upon and later sold by the Sheriff. As already stated, the
Court of Appeals found that it had been donated to Felisa Felias oh
March 31, 1028 by her parents, so that it became her paraphernal
property. It was levied upon and sold by the Sheriff as conjugal
property of the spouses Felisa and Simeon on the theory that under
Article 1404, paragraph 2, of the Old Civil Code, which reads as
follows:
“ART. 1404. * * *
“Buildings constructed
during the marriage on land belonging to one of the spouse shall also
belong to the partnership, but the value of the land shall be paid to
the spouse owning the same.”,
which legal provision was embodied in Article 158, paragraph 2, of the New Civil Code, which reads thus:
“ART. 158. * * *
“Buildings constructed at
the expense of the partnership during the marriage on land belonging to
one of the spouses, also pertain to the partnership, but the value of
the land shall be reimbursed to the spouse who owns the same.”,
it automatically became conjugal property when during the marriage,
and with conjugal partnership funds, a building was constructed on it.
However, the Court of Appeals found as a fact that at the time the
building was constructed, the lot still belonged to the parents of
Felisa because the donation to her was not made until March 31,1928,
whereas the building was constructed earlier, which building was
assessed as early as September, 1927, at P12,000. Consequently, Article
1404 of the Old Civil Code is not applicable. The Court of Appeals
itself said so, but nevertheless, it proceeded to assume that article
1404 was applicable, and proceeded to discuss the question thus:
“While it is true that the building was constructed
by the spouses Felisa and Simeon Sawamoto on Lot No. 107 at a time when
they were already married, nevertheless, it is equally true that then
Lot No. 107 did not yet belong to Felisa Felias, one of the
spouses—that land was still the property of the parents of Felisa
Felias. It would seem therefore, that Article 1404 of the Spanish Civil
Code would not apply. That legal precept refers to a building
constructed ‘on land belonging to one of the spouses.’ Rather, we would
say that the familiar rule of accessory following the principal should
apply.“But conceding, for present purposes, that after the
acquisition of the land by plaintiff, the matter of ownership of the
land (on which the said building was erected) comes within the coverage
of Article 1404 still the question arises: As of what time should the
land be considered the property of the spouses? On this point, we have
but to. restate the jurisprudence established by the Supreme Tribunal
of this country.”
We believe the assumption and the discussion to be profitless and
unnecessary. For purposes of this appeal, we shall decide the issue on
the basis of the fact that the building was constructed when the lot
belonged not to Felisa but her parents, in which case, as the Court of
Appeals itself observed, what was applicable was “the familiar rule of
accessory following the principal”. In other words, when the lot was
donated to Felisa by her parents, as owners of the land on which the
building was constructed, the lot became her paraphernal property. The
donation transmitted to her the rights of a landowner over a building
constructed on it. Therefore, at the time of the levy and sale of the
sheriff, Lot No. 107 did not belong to the conjugal partnership, but it
was paraphernal property of Felisa. As such, it was not answerable for
the obligations of her husband[1]
which resulted in the judgment against him in favor of Caltex. It may
be stated in this connection that as further found by the Court of
Appeals, the building constructed on Lot No. 107 was destroyed during
the last war, so that “at the time the Sheriff executed the final deed
of sale in favor of Caltex “(Phil.) Inc. on the 27th day of January,
1947, that house which was included in both deeds was no longer in
existence.”
In view of the foregoing, the appealed decision of the Court of
Appeals is hereby affirmed, though on another ground, with costs
against petitioner.
Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., took no part.
[1] Laperal et al., vs. Katigbak, 104 Phil, 999; 66 Off. Gaz., (18) 3894.