FELIPE DIZON ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. NICOLAS RIVERA, REMIGIA SANCHEZ, VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION, VICENTE ARIAS AND BALDOMERO ROXAS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

In the proceeding for the registration of the Maysilo Estate owned by
the Tuasons, opposition was filed by the possessors of various lots
included in the said estate. The owners of the estate and these
landholders entered into a compromise by virtue of which the said
landholders withdrew their opposition, acknowledging the ownership of
the Tuasons of the land, upon the promise of the owners of the estate
that after the registration of the same in their name, they would sell
to the landholders the respective lots occupied by them in good faith.
By virtue of this compromise the Maysilo Estate was registered in the
name of its owners, the Tuasons. Nicolas Rivera, who represented some
of the landholders-oppositors, acquired by virtue of the said
compromise an option to purchase lots Nos. 27, 28 and 29 and paid the
estate, on account, the sum of P1,879, representing 10 per cent of the
value of these lots, which amount, according to the compromise, it Was
necessary for him to deposit in order to secure the option. The amount
thus deposited by Nicolas Rivera came from the landholders whom he
represented. Nicolas Rivera’s option was acknowledged by the court in
the registration case and, furthermore, was expressly conceded to him
in a written contract by the representatives of the said estate.
According to the option, Nicolas Rivera was to pay the full price of
these lots within four years after January, 1918. It must be noted that
in the order of the court acknowledging the option of Nicolas Rivera
and also in the contract signed by the representatives of the estate
acknowledging the same, he is recognized as holding the option
personally and not as the representative of other persons.

On December 6, 1919, Nicolas Rivera transferred his option to Remigia
Sanchez for the sum of P11,700 reserving to himself the right to
repurchase 40 hectares at a price not less than 2 centavos per square
meter. In the deed of transfer Nicolas Rivera states that this option
belongs to him exclusively, and mentions the order of the court and the
contract of the owners of the estate in which this right was
acknowledged.

On February 7, 1920, Remigia Sanchez in turn
transferred her option to Vicente Singson Encarnacion for the sum of
P70,000. The latter, by paying the price of the lots to the estate,
secured from the representatives thereof the proper final deed of sale,
upon the strength of which he obtained the certificate of transfer
issued in his name.

On August 5, 1920, Vicente Singson
Encarnacion sold lot No. 28 to Vicente Arias for the sum of
P370,371.70, and on the 7th of the same month he sold lots Nos. 27 and
29 to Baldomero Roxas for the sum of P74,568.30, Singson acknowledged
and imposed upon his vendees the duty to respect Rivera’s option to
repurchase an area of 40 hectares.

The plaintiffs who claim
to be the possessors of lots Nos. 27, 28 and 29, represented by Nicolas
Rivera, bring this action, praying:

“1. That the defendant Nicolas Rivera be ordered to render an accounting of all moneys received by him from them.

“2. That the transfer of the option made by Nicolas Rivera to Remigia
Sanchez of lots Nos. 27, 28 and 29, as well as the transfer made by the
said Remigia Sanchez to Vicente Singson Encarnacion of the option to
buy the same lots for the same price and, lastly, the sale made by
Vicente Singson Encarnacion of lot No. 28 to Vicente Arias and of lots
Nos. 27 and 29 to Baldomero Roxas, be anulled.

“3. That
the defendant Nicolas Rivera be ordered to transfer lots Nos. 27, 28
and 29 to the herein plaintiffs, and failing to do so, his right of
representation be cancelled so that the herein plaintiffs may elect a
man; to be their representative, in whom they have confidence, for the
purpose of purchasing this land from the estate.

“4. Or,
since the lots in question, Nos. 27, 28 and 29, have been purchased
from the estate, that he be ordered to sell the same to the herein
plaintiffs upon the conditions contained in the contract dated February
1, 1910.

“5. That the defendant Nicolas Rivera be ordered
to return to the herein plaintiffs such sums of money as he may have
received from them and which have not been used for the purpose of
purchasing the said lots Nos. 27, 28 and 29.”

The appealed judgment absolved Remigia Sanchez, Vicente Singson
Encarnacion, Baldomero Roxas and Vicente Arias from the complaint and
ordered Nicolas Rivera to render an accounting to the plaintiffs of the
money received by him from them for the purchase of lots Nos. 27, 28
and 29, and also of the money he received for the purchase of lot No.
30, and proceeds from the sale of the option to Remigia Sanchez, with
interest upon said money from the date that he received the same until
fully paid, reserving to the plaintiffs such rights of action as they
may have against Nicolas Rivera and the other defendants.

The appellants assigned as an error committed by the court below its
holding that the plaintiffs had not obtained the ownership of lots Nos.
27, 28 and 29 and therefore are not entitled to recover the same. This
holding of the court, however, is correct. The plaintiffs acknowledged
that the ownership of these lots was in the owners of the Maysilo
Estate and they only obtained the option to buy these lots upon the
conditions specified in the contract entered into with them. All that
they did, through their representative Nicolas Rivera, in regard to
this option was to pay the amount of P1,879, equivalent to 10 per cent
of the purchase price of the lots; but this was not all that was
necessary in order for them to acquire the ownership of these lots. In
addition, they had to complete the payment of the purchase price within
four years from January, 1918, failing in which their option would
expire and the estate would be free to sell the lots to other persons.
The plaintiffs, neither by themselves nor through their representative
Nicolas Rivera, have paid the balance of the purchase price of these
lots wherefore they have not acquired their ownership.

Appellants also urge that it is proper to rescind the transfer of the
option on these lots made by Nicolas Rivera to Remigia Sanchez for the
reason that there was collusion between them. There is, however,
absolutely nothing in the record to sustain this contention. Remigia
Sanchez paid cash to Nicolas Rivera for this option, and the latter,
when making the transfer, declared and led Remigia Sanchez to believe
that the option belonged to him exclusively. The order of the court and
the contract signed by the representatives of the estate acknowledging
this option in favor of Nicolas Rivera do not state that the said
Nicolas Rivera acted as representative of other persons. Nicolas
Rivera, when testifying at the trial as a witness for the plaintiffs,
omitted to state that he had, in any way, informed Remigia Sanchez that
this option had been obtained by him, not for himself but in behalf of
others.

It is true that Nicolas Rivera testified at the
beginning that it was Emilio Sanchez, brother of Remigia Sanchez, to
whom he wanted to sell the lots and that he had advised him that they
could not be sold to any other person except to the plaintiffs, but
admitted that he did not say this to Remigia Sanchez nor to anybody
else, but only to Emilio Sanchez. There is no evidence in the record to
show that Emilio Sanchez had mentioned this to Remigia Sanchez. But
that is immaterial because the appellants do not wish to repurchase
these lots from Remigia Sanchez or her successors in interest, but on
the contrary, demand the annulment of the transfer of the option made
by Nicolas Rivera to Remigia.

It is suggested in the brief
of the appellants that Remigia Sanchez should have known the status of
Nicolas Rivera in regard to this option because she was one of the
holders of lot No. 28, This is not correct. Remigia Sanchez testified,
as a witness for the plaintiffs, that she was a holder of another lot,
and not of one of the lots here in question, and that she did not know
that the lots bad been occupied by other persons before she bought the
option.

From the foregoing it follows that Remigia Sanchez
purchased in good faith, legally and validly the option of Nicolas
Rivera. Under the circumstances, whatever disposition she might later
have made of the option cannot be assailed by the plaintiffs since the
latter had lost every right to the option. After acquiring this option
Remigia could dispose of it as she pleased which, in itself, is
sufficient to affirm the judgment of the court below.

Appellants, however, claim that the transfer of the option by Remigia
Sanchez to Vicente Singson Encarnacion must also be rescinded on the
ground of being fraudulent. There is likewise no evidence to show this
fraud. It is alleged that notwithstanding the fact that this transfer
was made for the sum of P70,000, Remigia Sanchez only received the sum
of P19,000 from Singson Encarnacion. While Remigia Sanchez so
testified, yet Singson on the other hand stated that he had paid the
full amount stipulated. At any rate this is a question between Remigia
and Singson.

Finally, appellants urge that the sales of
these lots by Singson Encarnacion to Dr. Baldomero Roxas and to Mr.
Vicente Arias should also be rescinded as being fraudulent. As evidence
of the fraud it is alleged that Roxas had not yet paid the agreed
purchase price and that Arias later transferred to Roxas one-half of
the lot that he had bought from him. All of this, however, is explained
in the record. Roxas agreed to suspend the transaction in view of the
fact, that this case had been taken to court, and Arias transferred the
one-half of the lot to Singson by reason of another lawful collateral
transaction.

As to the effect of the commencement of this
action upon the different transactions we hold that it has not affected
any of them, from the transfer of the option to Remigia Sanchez to the
sale of the lots by Singson to Roxas and Arias. Remigia Sanchez
acquired the option before the filing of the complaint in this action,
and the subsequent transactions between Remigia, Singson, Roxas and
Arias took place before they were included as parties thereto.

Furthermore, the increase in the value of these lots in the various
transactions is not necessarily an argument against the good faith of
the defendants. This is usual in certain lawful speculations.

The alleged grounds for a new trial not having sufficient weight to affect this decision, said petition is hereby denied.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed with costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.