WENCESLAO URMANETA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MARTIN MANZANO ET AL., DEFENDANTS. MARTIN MANZANO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeals from a decision dated
September 9, 1958 of the Court of First Instance of Isabela, Hon. Pedro
C. Quinto, presiding in Civil Case No. II-256, entitled “Wenceslao
Urmaneta, plaintiff, versus Martin Manzano, Victor Mendoza, Florentino
Bea, Enciong Gamad and Felix Pataray, defendants.” The Court of Appeals
resolved on June 29, 1960 to elevate this appeal to this Court, for the
reason that inasmuch as “appeal questions the correctness of the
interpretations and conclusions reached by the trial judge on the
pleadings and documents presented and such pleadings and documents were
the only basis of the judgment appealed from, the issue is one of law.”

The dispositive part of the decision appealed from reads as follows:

“There is no genuine issue as to any material fact
between the herein plaintiff and defendant Martin Manzano, hence,
plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be granted as he is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

“Wherefore, the
Court hereby renders judgment declaring the plaintiff the equitable
owner with vested dominical and possessory rights over the land in
question, and ordering the herein defendant Martin Manzano and his
co-defendants to vacate and surrender to the herein plaintiff the
material and peaceful possession of the land described in the
complaint.”

On November 14, 1957, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the lower
court against the above-named defendants, alleging that he is the owner
of a parcel of land covered by Homestead Application No. 170944, Lot
6654-“B”, Cad. 211, Santiago Cadastre, situated at Bagnos, Victoria,
San Mateo and Alicia, Province of Isabela, as evidenced by a transfer
of homestead rights and an order for the issuance of patent; that
defendants took possession of said property, thereby depriving the
plaintiff of the fruits thereof, which had amounted to P10,000.00; that
defendants continued in possession of the land despite repeated demands
by the plaintiff for them to vacate the premises; that in 1955,
defendant Martin Manzano filed a criminal action against the plaintiff
in connection with this land, which case was subsequently dismissed;
that by reason of the acts of the defendants, the plaintiff suffered
moral damages amounting to P10,000.00 and he was forced to hire the
services of counsel. Plaintiff, therefore, prays that he be restored
possession of said land and that defendants be ordered to pay damages
to him. Attached to the complaint are (a) an order dated
January 18, 1956 of the Director of Lands approving the transfer of
homestead rights over said land from the Heirs of Pio Novesteros to the
plaintiff (Annex A), and (b) another order dated June 1, 1956
of the Director of Lands, approving the final proof submitted over said
land and ordering issuance of patent to the applicant, the plaintiff
herein. (Annex B).

On December 14, 1957, upon motion of the plaintiff, defendants
Victor Mendoza, Florentino Bea, Enciong Gamad and Felix Pataray were
declared in default for their failure to answer the complaint within
the reglementary period.

Defendant Manzano filed on December 19, 1957, a motion to dismiss
the complaint, claiming that it does not state a cause of action and
that plaintiff’s claim for damages is without legal basis. Attached to
his motion are (1) an order of the Director of Lands dated February 14,
1955, confirming, among other things, Teodora Manzano’s right to
portion “B” of Lot 6654 (now in question); (2) a certification of the
Land Registration Commission that said Lot 6654 was declared public
land and that copies of the decision relative to said lot were lost by
reason of the last war; (3) an order of the lower court dismissing,
upon motion of the Fiscal, a criminal case of theft filed against
Wenceslao Urmaneta, the plaintiff herein.

Acting upon said motion to dismiss, the lower court denied the same
on February 8, 1958. Consequently, defendant Manzano filed his answer,
wherein he alleged among other things, as a specific defense, the
following:

“9. That under the facts and circumstances stated in
the preceding paragraphs, the defendant Martin Manzano, much less the
other defendants herein, has no interest over the parcel of
land in litigation described in paragraph 2 of the complaint,
designated as Portion “B”, of Lot No. 6654, Cad. No. 211, except for
being a tenant of Teodora Manzano just as the other defendants herein,
since the present agricultural year (1957-1958), with a fixed quantity
of palay (8 cavans per hectare) to be delivered to her every harvest
season; and alleges as” (p. 48, ROA).

On February 22, 1958, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary
judgment, claiming that Teodora Manzano, the alleged landlady of
defendants, had on November 17, 1950 sold to the plaintiff all her
rights and interests in the said land, as evidenced by a deed of
“Transfer of Homestead Rights” executed by Teodora Manzano in favor of
the plaintiff (Annex “A” to motion). After the plaintiff filed his
answer to defendant’s counterclaim, the lower court on March 15, 1958
denied the motion for summary judgment for the reason that the
supporting evidence is a mere photostat of the supposed transfer of
rights.

Consequently, on April 7, 1958, the plaintiff filed a second motion
for summary judgment, reiterating the reasons alleged in the first
motion and attaching thereto the following documents: (1) Deed of
Transfer of homestead rights over the land in question executed on
November 17, 1950 by Teodora Manzano in favor of Wenceslao Urmaneta,
the plaintiff herein (Annex A-motion); (2) Affidavit of Alejandro
Ramos, a public land inspector, to the effect that he ratified the
aforesaid transfer of homestead rights and that he actually saw
Urmaneta cultivates said land after said deed was executed (Annex
B-motion); (3) Order dated January 18, 1956 of the Director of Lands
approving transfer of homestead rights of the heirs of Pio Novesteros
over the land in favor of Wenceslao Urmaneta (Annex C-motion); (4)
Certification of Alejandro C. Ramos, Public Land Inspector, that he has
inspected the land applied for by Urmaneta and that he recommended
issuance to him of a patent after the land is surveyed. This report was
endorsed on April 30, 1956 by the District Land Officer to the Director
of Lands, with the recommendation for the issuance of a patent (Annex
D); (5) Order dated June 1, 1956 by the Assistant Director of Lands
approving final proof submitted by the plaintiff and ordering the
issuance of a patent in his name (Annex E); (6) Declaration of Real
Property No. 5222, in the name of Wenceslao Urmaneta, over the property
in question. This tax declaration contains a statement that the taxes
from 1954 to 1957 have been paid with the backpay of said Urmaneta.
(Annex F).

Defendant Manzano filed his opposition to said second motion for
summary judgment, claiming that Teodora Manzano, his landlady, is an
indispensable party to the case and should be included as a party
thereto. In his opposition, defendant Manzano attached several
documents, as follows: (1) Complaint filed by Teodora Manzano against
Martin Manzano dated February 24, 1956 (Civil Case No. 63), for
forcible entry with application for receivership, involving the land in
question in this case; (2) Order of the Justice of the Peace Court of
San Mateo, Isabela dismissing the complaint upon motion of plaintiff’s
counsel; (3) motion of plaintiff’s counsel in said Civil Case No. 63
asking for a temporary dismissal of the case on the ground that the
whereabouts of the plaintiff are unknown; (4) a protest filed by
Teodora Manzano with the Director of Lands against the plaintiff
herein, denying transfer of her rights over the land to the plaintiff;
(5) Letter dated May 10, 1957 of the Director of Lands forwarding the
protest of Teodora Manzano to the District Land Officer, Ilagan,
Isabela and requiring him to conduct an investigation of said protest;
(6) Subpoena directed to Teodora Manzano et al., from the Land
Investigator Maniquis requiring them to appear on May 22, 1958 at the
Municipal Building of San Mateo, Isabela, in connection with said case.

On September 9, 1958, after the lower court gave the defendant time
to submit his annexes, the said court rendered the decision now under
review, finding that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
between the parties and declaring the plaintiff owner and rightful
possessor of the land, and ordering defendant Martin Manzano to vacate
the land and surrender its material and peaceful possession to
plaintiff.

Defendant Manzano filed a motion for reconsideration on September
30, 1958, which was opposed by the plaintiff on October 10,1958. On
October 17,1958, the court denied the motion for reconsideration, and
so defendant prosecuted this appeal. On the same date, the court, in a
separate order, dismissed plaintiff’s claim for damages, upon the
latter’s motion.

Appellant contends that the lower court erred in not ordering
appellee to amend his complaint to include Teodora Manzano as a party
defendant and in rendering a summary judgment in favor of the appellee.
But in a motion dated April 18, 1960, appellee attached an affidavit
dated April 6, 1959, wherein Teodora Manzano reiterated that she had
transferred to the appellee all her rights and interests in the land,
and that appellant Manzano had never been her tenant thereon after
February 14, 1955.

We have examined the records of the case, and we find that there was
no formal trial conducted by the court during which the parties
introduced their evidence. Summary judgment was rendered upon the
documentary evidence attached to the pleadings, which evidence are not
controverted.

Appellant claims possession of the land as tenant of Teodora Manzano, whom he alleged to be the owner thereof.

The documentary evidence belie the claim of the appellant that
Teodora Manzano is the owner of the property. They show that on July 8,
1930, the late Pio Novesteros filed a homestead application over the
land and his application was approved on November 28, 1930. The heirs
of said Pio Novesteros, upon his death, proposed to sell their rights
to Teodora Manzano, but before the transfer could be approved by the
Director of Lands, Teodora sold on November 17, 1950 all her rights
thereon to the plaintiff-appellee. It is apparent also from the order
of the Director of Lands dated January 18, 1956 that the heirs of the
late Pio Novesteros, represented by Jaime Novesteros, transferred their
rights over the land to Wenceslao Urmaneta, the appellee herein, which
transfer was approved by the Director of Lands in said order.
Immediately after the approval of the transfer of rights, Urmaneta
continued with the homestead application of the late Pio Novesteros,
and on June 1, 1956, the final proof submitted by him was approved by
the Director of Lands, and a patent was ordered issued in his name.
Thereafter, the appellee declared the property for taxation purposes
under Tax Declaration No. 5222 of Isabela, and he paid the
corresponding taxes thereon from 1954 up to 1957.

It is evident from the foregoing facts that the appellee is the
owner of the land in question and that Teodora Manzano had validly
transferred whatever rights and interests therein she had to the
appellee.

It is true that a protest was filed by said Teodora Manzano in
connection with said land with the Director of Lands and that the
latter had previously (on February 14, 1955) upheld her rights thereon.
But no patent was issued to Teodora Manzano; neither was a final proof
submitted by her been approved by the Director of Lands. Moreover, said
Teodora Manzano had confirmed the sale of her rights and interests in
the land to the appellee, in her affidavit dated April 6, 1959. In the
same affidavit, said Teodora Manzano denied that the appellant has been
her tenant after February 14, 1955 (long before the complaint in this
case was filed).

Conclusive is the documentary evidence of appellee’s ownership of
the land in question. It is true that three documents presented by
defendant Martin Manzano show that Teodora Manzano had brought an
action of forcible entry against Martin Manzano (Annex 1) but this
action was dismissed upon motion by the lawyer for Teodora Manzano
herself as the latter could not be located (Annexes 2 & 3). It is
also true that on September 28, 1956, Teodora Manzano filed a protest
with the Bureau of Lands against the claim of plaintiff Urmaneta to the
land in question (Annex 4). But the first three documents do not show
any right of defendant to the land. On the other hand, the supposed
protest of Teodora Manzano came late because in an order of the
Director of Lands of January 18, 1956, it was declared that Teodora
Manzano had renounced her right and interest to the land in favor of
Urmaneta (Annex A-Complaint) and patent for the land was ordered issued
on June 1, 1956 (Annex B-Complaint). Even in the case of the protest,
defendant cannot shield himself behind it, for defendant-appellant does
not claim the land; he only claims that it belongs to another, Teodcra
Manzano. But even this conclusion is fully overcome by the approval of
the transfer of the homestead in favor of Urmaneta and the order of the
Director of Lands for the issuance of title to him. Furthermore, in an
affidavit dated April 16, 1959, Teodora Manzano admitted having
transferred her rights and interests over the land.

There was really no genuine issue of fact. If there is, the same was
easily determinable from the pleadings and documents attached thereto;
hence, the trial court correctly rendered the summary judgment on said
pleadings and documents.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. With costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.