THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, APPLICANT, VS. AGUSTIN JAVIER, CLAIMANT AND APPELLANT, CORNELIA HECHANOVA, CLAIMANT AND APPELLEE.

It is but fair to say that opposing counsel have submitted able and
exhaustive briefs. In the final analysis, the real question involved is
the legal force and effect of what is known in the record as Exhibit B,
which purports to be a deed by Catalino Hechanova to Javier for an
undivided one-half interest in the lots for a consideration of P2,000.
The lower court held that the deed was null and void and without
consideration; that the money was never paid. That is purely a question
of fact, and hence the findings of the trial court are entitled to
weight.

Upon that point there is a sharp conflict in the evidence. Both
Javier and the notary, who prepared the deed positively testified that
P1,000 was paid to Catalino Hechanova in the office of the notary at
the time the deed was executed, and there is evidence tending to show
that the remaining P1,000 was paid to him prior to his death. We are
clearly of the opinion that the P2,000 was paid to Catalino Hechanova,
and that he executed the deed in question. It also appears that at the
time Catalino Hechanova was an old man and nearly blind, and that he
executed the deed with a thumb mark, for the reason that he was not
able to write his name. That Javier is his son-in-law and employed a
notary to prepare the deed. The deed was executed on April 15, 1919,
and the appellee claims that it appears from the sworn affidavit of
Javier in his application to approve his title, that the lots in
question are assessed at P69,210. From an examination of those
affidavits, it is extremely doubtful if they will bear that
construction. Be that as it may, it is apparent from the record that in
March, 1921, the lots ranged from P20,000 to P30,000, the one-half of
which would be P10,000 or P15,000. There is also a sharp conflict in
the evidence as to whether or not Javier ever took possession of the
property or claimed to own it until after the death of Catalino
Hechanova. The evidence for the appellee is clear and positive that he
never did take possession and that she never knew of the execution of
the deed until Javier filed his proof of claim in the land registration
case in March, 1921, and that from the execution of the deed in April,
1919, he never claimed or asserted any right to or shared in the
fruits, rents and profits of the land. As stated, we are clearly of the
opinion that Javier paid to Catalino Hechanova P2,000, as he contends,
which is the consideration named in the deed. We are also of the
opinion that the consideration for the deed is grossly inadequate and
that Catalino Hechanova never intended to convey an absolute title to
the land for P2,000. The fact that he was an old man; that he was
nearly blind; that Agustin Javier was his son-in-law; and that the
consideration was grossly inadequate all tend to show that Javier drove
an unconscionable bargain in obtaining the deed. Owing to the relations
existing between them and the age of the old man and his want of
eyesight, it devolved upon Javier to be fair and just rather than to
overreach him. In other words, we are clearly of the opinion that it
was never the purpose or intent of Catalino Hechanova to make an
absolute conveyance to Javier of the lots in question for a
consideration of P2,000, and that the deed, known in the record as
Exhibit B, cannot be sustained as a conveyance of the legal title to
Javier of the lots in question. In that respect, but for different
reasons, the judgment of the lower court, decreeing the registration of
the lots in question in the names of Catalino Hechanova and Vicenta
Guriesa, is affirmed. Javier having paid the P2,000, we are also
clearly of the opinion that he is entitled to, and should have, a
preferred lien on an undivided half of the lots in question for that
amount dating from the date of the execution of the deed, with interest
thereon from that date at the rate of 6 per cent per annum until paid,
which preferred lien on such half interest shall be noted on such
certificate of title of Catalino Hechanova and Vicenta Guriesa.

For failure to pay such lien with accrued interest within ninety
days after this judgment becomes final, Javier shall have the legal
right to enforce it in an appropriate proceeding and to have such
interest sold and the proceeds of sale applied to the satisfaction; of
his preferred lien.

The judgment of the lower court as to the registration of the title
to the lots in question in the names of Catalino Hechanova and Vicenta
Guriesa, in that respect, is affirmed, but Agustin Javier is hereby
decreed a preferred lien in his favor on an undivided one-half interest
on the lots in question for the sum of P2,000 dating from April 15,
1919, together with interest thereon from that date at the rate of
& per cent per annum until paid, which preferred lien with such
interest shall be noted on the title of Catalino Hechanova and Vicenta
Guriesa. Neither party to recover costs on this appeal. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.