JUAN S. ALVAREZ, AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF AMBROSIO TORRES WEE CHI, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. DALMACIO GUEVARA WEE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

ROMUALDEZ, J.:

This action is upon certain documents which the plaintiff alleges were
illegally and fraudulently executed and obtained, and he prays, for that reason,
that they be cancelled and adjudged null and of no effect, while the defendant
maintains that they were legally and freely executed, without force, violence,
fraud, or malice.

After a hearing, the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga pronounced the
documents fraudulent and therefore void, with the costs against the
defendant.

The defendant has appealed from said judgment, alleging that the trial court
erred: (a) In ordering the reopening of the case about five months
after the closing of the evidence; (b) in holding that Exhibit 2 (4),
the deed of sale of lot 7, was fraudulent; (c) in holding that Exhibit
1 (3) was fraudulent; and (d) in holding said conveyances fraudulent
and rendering judgment against the defendant for costs.

Under the circumstances of the case, it lay within the discretion of the
court below to permit the reopening of the case before the rendition of
judgment, and it does not appear from the record that in doing so, it abused its
discretion. We do not find the first assignment of error to have been shown.

As to the documents adjudged void, the evidence does not sufficiently
establish that the deceased Ambrosio Torres was indebted to the defendant in the
sum of P8,000, the value of a note which is said to have been returned by the
defendant after said documents had been signed a few days before his death, and
when the notary before whom they were ratified was no longer present.

Furthermore, as appears from Exhibit 2 or 4, a part of the price or
consideration of said sale was the sum of P8,000 which Ambrosio Torres owed to
the Bank of the Philippine Islands for the payment of which the defendant was
liable. The fact, however, is that Ambrosio Torres owed nothing to said bank,
and was only a guarantor of the defendant to said institution for the payment of
what may be found due from the defendant up to the amount of P8,000.

After an examination of the record and consideration of all the circumstances
of the case, we find no sufficient reason for disturbing the finding made by the
court below that the conveyances evidenced by the documents in question are
fraudulent.

There being no merit in the assignments of error, and the judgment appealed
from being in accordance with the facts proven and the law, the same is hereby
affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avancena, Villamor, Ostrand, and
Johns, JJ, concur.