G.R. No. 29304. February 06, 1929
FAUSTINA ACOSTA ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. TEODORO Y. GOMEZ AND BENITA AUSTRIA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
MALCOLM, J.:
considering the numerous legal proceedings which have been begun but
which have not been carried through to the end, considering the state
of the pleadings, and considering the failure of proof in some
respects. While notwithstanding these obstacles the case has been given
prolonged attention by the court, yet for its prompt disposal it would
be well to concentrate on the essential facts with the purpose in mind
of doing substantial justice to the parties.
Prior to June 3, 1916, Faustina Acosta, the widow of Domingo Holanday, and her children were owners pro indiviso
of three parcels of land situated in the municipality of Bayambang,
Province of Pangasinan. This land was encumbered in the amount of
P5,000 in favor of the Government Agricultural Bank. On the date
mentioned, Faustina Acosta and her children executed a deed of sale
purporting to convey the land to Father Justo Claudio. The
consideration for this conveyance was mentioned in the document as the
sum of P30,000, but the real consideration, as disclosed by the
promissory note and other circumstances, may have been only P10,000.
The real purpose of the parties was to enable Father Claudio more
easily to effect the sale of the property. During the period subsequent
to this transaction, Faustina Acosta remained in possession of the land.
When these events occurred, the property was duly registered in
accordance with the Torrens system. Father Claudio made use of the same
legal form by securing the registry of the property in his name. He
then sold the land in question to one Esteban I. Vasquez for the
purported sum of P31,000. Esteban I. Vasquez in turn sold the land to
Macario Marco for the purported sum of P31,000. Macario Marco sold the
land to Feliciano Gomez and Gregorio Ocampo for the purported sum of
P10,000. Feliciano Gomez sold the land to Teodoro Y. Gomez for the
purported sum of P6,000. Teodoro Y. Gomez sold the land to Benita
Austria for the purported sum of P25,000. In all of these sales, the
proper changes and notations were made on the certificate of title.
In connection with these numerous transfers, it need only be said
here that there is no showing that Faustina Acosta ever received a
centavo from Father Claudio. It should further be mentioned that
Vasquez and Marco were companions of Father Claudio and that Benita
Austria who lived with Teodoro Y. Gomez when she purchased the land is
his mother-in-law,
The foregoing are the necessary facts. While there may be some
dispute with reference to some of their details as before set forth,
they are a resume of the facts as previously found in a decision of
this court in Teodoro Y. Gomez vs. Faustina Acosta, No. 16449,[1]
and as found by Judge Zandueta in the trial court. Both this court when
it had the case before it in 1922, and the lower court in the present
proceedings were emphatic in bearing down on the idea of a chain of
simulated transfers having all the indicia of fraud, to the prejudice
of the rightful owners, the widow and her children.
As related to the facts, reference should be made to the legal
proceedings which have been started to obtain control of the land in
question. Omitting all reference to prior fruitless litigation, we may
as well begin with the action begun in the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan in the name of Feliciano Gomez and Gregorio Ocampo with a
view to obtaining an injunction against Faustina Acosta. In the lower
court, the plaintiffs to this suit were successful. On appeal, however,
this court reversed the judgment and absolved the defendant from the
complaint without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to file an
appropriate complaint, if so advised, to obtain a declaration of
ownership and to recover the property.” As a result of this decision,
Faustina Acosta was legally entitled to the possession of the land in
dispute, but seems to have lost her control through the machinations of
her adversaries. At any rate, Teodoro Y. Gomez, taking advantage of the
reservation made in his favor by this court, brought an action in the
Court of First Instance against Faustina Acosta in which he asked that
he be declared the absolute owner of the land. The complaint was,
however, dismissed on the petition of the plaintiff. It then became
necessary not for Gomez to take the initiative because he had assumed
dominion over the land, but for Faustina Acosta to do so in order to
protect her interests. This she did by instituting the present suit
against Teodoro Y. Gomez, who was the plaintiff in the injunction suit,
and Benita Austria to whom he had transferred his interests during the
pendency of this suit. The judgment on this action declared the
plaintiffs the sole and absolute owners of the land in question;
ordered the cancellation of all the transfers and notations made with
respect to original certificate of title No. 90; sentenced the
defendants to deliver to the plaintiffs the possession of the said
land, and to pay them the sum of P21,975 annually from March, 1922, as
damages until restitution, with the costs; and condemned the plaintiffs
to pay to Teodoro Y. Gomez the sum of P3,711.71, representing the
amount paid by him on account of the mortgage debt to the bank. It is
from this judgment that the defendants have appealed.
The eleven assigned errors raise two principal questions and a
number of subsidiary questions which need resolution. The first
question to which, attention is directed is whether defendants’
predecessors in interest must be included as parties defendant for the
correct resolution of this case. In this connection, it will be
recalled that the defendants are the last and next to the last
purchasers of the parcels of land in dispute. But little time need be
taken to dispose of this point for it was the purpose of this court in
the previous case of Gomez vs. Acosta to dispose of all
pending matters up to the time of the promulgation of the decision.
That action went against Teodoro Y. Gomez with a reservation in his
favor, of which he never took advantage. That being the state of the
record, the only necessary parties were then Teodoro Y. Gomez on
account of his usurpation of legal rights and the party to whom he had
transferred whatever rights he had. The action in reality is one to
compel Benita Austria, as a purchaser in bad faith, to return the land
she illegally possesses to the rightful owners.
The second question is whether the defendants are innocent
purchasers for value. On this point, when the case was here before, Mr.
Justice Street, speaking for the court, said that the right of action
of Faustina Acosta and her children could be “maintained by them
against any successor in interest of Father Claudio except an innocent
purchaser for value and without notice and those claiming under such.
Upon the facts before us it is exceedingly doubtful if any of the
persons who have successively acquired title subsequent to Father
Claudio can be considered to be innocent purchasers for value; and it
is not improbable that nothing was ever paid by any of them. Certainly,
no proof upon this point has been adduced in favor of the plaintiff.”
Now, when that was said, the party before the court was Teodoro Y.
Gomez. He acted, it is true, to protect the land by paying the mortgage
debt to the bank and by making good for the taxes. On the other hand, a
sale to Benita Austria by Teodoro Y. Gomez can only be looked upon with
suspicion when the relationship of the parties is recalled and when it
must be assumed that Benita Austria was fully informed as to the
pending litigation concerning the title to the land. Also, while
Teodoro Y. Gomez claims to have paid for the land the sum of P6,000, a
sum much lower than his predecessors in interest had paid for it, he
sold the land to his mother-in-law for the sum of P25,000, a price much
higher than he paid for it. The trial court even went ‘so far as to
express a doubt if any sale had really been made, and as to this
finding we are not prepared to say that it was wrong.
In addition to these two main questions, there is a subsidiary one
which has been somewhat perplexing. This has to do with the claim put
in by Faustina Acosta before the commissioners on claims of the estate
of Father Claudio for the sum of P3,670 plus P500 by way of damages,
which was approved by the Court of First Instance of Manila. This might
be explained as merely a precautionary measure by Faustina Acosta. On
the other hand, it might be taken as a ratification. However, a perusal
of the answer interposed by the defendants will disclose that it is in
the nature of a general denial and that ratification is not pleaded.
The court has, therefore, resolved that it would be unauthorized to
present and sustain a special defense for the defendants which they
themselves have not set up.
The only other points which need special consideration are those
relating to the amount of the damages. The trial court allowed the
plaintiffs P21,975 annually and allowed the defendants P3,711.71 as a
sort of a set-off although no counterclaim was presented. Over P20,000
a year as income on property which apparently is not valued at much
more, at once impresses one as exorbitant. As a total, it would come to
more than P100,000. Moreover, to substantiate the amount of the
damages, only one witness was presented, and he, an interested party,
whose testimony, to say the least, is vague and general. Under these
conditions, we do not think it would be fair to confirm such
extraordinary damages without adequate evidence. The burden of proof in
this respect was on the plaintiffs, and we do not think they have
carried the burden to a successful conclusion. From the standpoint of
equity, it would seem a just conclusion simply to permit the plaintiffs
to recover the land and offset whatever amount the defendants have
obtained from the cultivation of the land against the amounts which
they have paid on the mortgage and for taxes.
To conclude, we resolve each of the assigned errors against the
appellants except the seventh which, in relation with the eighth, is in
part held sustainable. Otherwise, the findings and the judgment of the
trial court are adhered to.
In accordance with the foregoing pronouncements, the judgment
appealed from will be modified by the elimination of the following
phrases: “y a pagarles la cantidad de P21,975 anuales desde el mes de
marzo de 1922 hasta que restituyan los mismos en concepto de daiios y
perjuicios. Tambien se condena a los demandantes Faustina Acosta y sus
hijos a que restituyen a Teodoro Y. Gomez la cantidad abonada por este
montante a “P3,711.71 con intereses legales desde la fecha en que
Teodoro Y. Gomez pago dicha cantidad”—and as thus modified, the
judgment will be affirmed, without special finding as to costs in this
instance.
Johnson, Street, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
[1] Promulgated January 13, 1922, not reported.