J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FEDERICO CADAMPOG, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

On 5 September 1959,
plaintiff J. M. Tuason & Co. filed Civil Case No. Q-3288 in the
Court of First Instance of Rizal against Federico Cadampog, alleging
that it is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Quezon City
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1267; that on or about
January of 1952 defendants, without plaintiff’s consent, and through
force, strategy, and stealth, entered into possession of 100 square
metera inside plaintiff’s registered land, and asserted rights of
possession derogatory of plaintiff’s indefeasible title, to the damage
of the latter equivalent to P30.00 a month, which is the reasonable
rental value of the premises in question; and prayed that defendant be
adjudged without right of possession and title in said premises, that
he bo ordered to vacate the same and remove the constructions made
thereon/and to pay P30.00 a month from entry until restoration of
possession, together with costs,

In due, time, defendant Cadampog answered the complaint, pleading inter alia
that the premises involved were donated to him on 15 May 1950 by
Agustin de Torres, as evidenced by a notarial deed of donation; that
Agustin de Torres had purchased the property from the heir of the
original owner, Telesforo Deudor; that plaintiff’s torrens title was
null and void; that defendant had been, through his predecessors in
interest, in adverse possession for more than 80 years; that J. M.
Tuason & Co., Inc., was in estoppel to assert title; that plaintiff
was a transferee of the land, in bad faith from Rufina Guerrero, widow
and heir of Agustin de Torres, through a compromise had in Civil Case
Nos. Q-135, Q-139, Q-174, and Q-177 of Quezon City without defendant’s
consent; that plaintiff had secured registration of its title through
fraud, and held the land in question in trust for defendant; and prayed
for the dismissal of the action, damages, and attorney’s fees.

After plaintiff’s reply, traversing defendant’s counter-claims, said
defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that Rufina Guerrero, the
widow of his vendor, Agustin de Torres, had, on 27 February 1959,
instituted an action (Civil Case No. 4057 of the same court) seeking
reconveyance from plaintiff Tuason & Co. of a lot that included the
one occupied by defendant; that said action was prejudicial to that
filed by Tuason & Co. against him; and prayed that the latter be
dismissed, or if not, held in abeyance until Case No. 4057 is finally
decided. Plaintiff opposed the motion to dismiss.

Without awaiting resolution on the motion, defendant and plaintiff entered into the following stipulation of facts:

1. That plaintiff is a duly organized domestic corporation with
   domicile at Manila; that defendant is of age and is residing at
   Kalayaan St., near corner of BMA Ave., Bo. Tatalon, Quezon City;

2. That plaintiff is the registered owner of a parcel of land in Quezon
   City by T.C.T. No. 1267 (37686-RizaI) described in plan Psc-3824, which
   certificate of title and plan are herewith submitted and admitted as
   Exhs. “A” and “B”, respectively;

3. That on January 2,
   1952, defendant, without the consent or knowledge of plaintiff, entered
   into the property covered by Exhs. “A” and “B” and occupied an area of
   100 square meters therein, said area being indicated and marked in Exh.
   “B” as Exh. “B-1”;

4. That for the occupation of said area
   of 100 square meters defendant has not paid plaintiff anything; that
   the fair rental value of said area is P30.00 per month; that defendant
   still occupied said area;

5. That said area is within the
   property covered by the compromise agreement dated March 16, 1953 and
   approved in toto in a judgment dated April 10, 1953 in Civil Cases No.
   Q-135, Q-139, Q-174, Q-177 and Q-186;

That said area was the object of a “DEED OF DONATION dated May 31,
1950 executed m favor of defendant by Agustin de Torres, deceased
husband of Rufina Guerrero, one of his signatories in the above-stated
compromise agreement of March 16, 1953, said deed of Donation being
attached hereto as Exh. “1” for the defendant,”

Thereafter, the parties asked that the Clerk of Court be
commissioned to receive further evidence. The court did as requested,
and the plaintiff presented as Exhibit “A” Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 1267, derived from O.C.T. No. 735 of Rizal, issued on 8 July
1914; while defendant introduced as Exhibit “1” the deed of donation
executed in his favor by the late Agustin de Torres. Thereafter, the
case was submitted for decision. On the basis of the documents and the
stipulation, the court below adjudged in favor of plaintiff, as prayed
for in the complaint. Defendant then appealed to the Court of Appeals,
which certified the case to this Court as involving only questions of
law.

The first error assigned is the refusal of the court of first
instance to dismiss the case, or at least suspend proceedings until
Civil Case No. 4059 (Guerrero Vda. de Torres vs. J. M. Tuason
& Co.) should be finally determined. Appellant argues that if
Guerrero succeeded in obtaining reconveyance of the land claimed by
her, it would settle the issues of the present appeal. This error is,
untenable. Since Guerrero’s husband had donated to appellant the lot
now occupied by the latter prior to the institution of the reconveyance
case, and since appellant is not a party therein, the result of that
litigation will not be determinative of appellant’s case. Moreover,
appellant had waived his motion to dismiss based on the pendency of the
reconveyance case, by presenting evidence and submitting for decision
on the merits the case at bar without awaiting resolution of the motion
to dismiss.

The appellant’s alleged character of builder in good faith as well
as his right to the benefits of the compromise agreement between the
Beudors and appellee Tuason & Co., despite the fact that appellant
is not a party thereto, are points that were raised and passed upon
unfavorably to similar claimants in previous decisions of this Court
Tuason & Co. vs. Macalindong, L-15398, 29 Dec. 1962; Tuason ,& Co.. vs. Aguirre,
L-15398, 31 Jan. 1963); and the rulings therein apply with equal force
to appellant Cadampog. It is difficult to see how the compromise
stipulation that the Deudors would make their vendees recognize the
Title of Tuazon & Co., Inc., can be construed as a sale or
conveyance in favor of Tuason & Co. by the Deudors, nor how
appellant Cadampog can bo entitled to enforce a” compromise to which he
was not a party. Aside from the fact that he paid nothing for the lot
he occupies, being a mere donee, his action, if any, is against his
immediate transferor or the privies of the latter.

We find no reversible error in the judgment appealed from, and,
therefore, the same is affirmed. Costs against appellant Cadampog.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ. concur.