MABIA ANGELES RAMOS, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF VIVENCIO RAMOS AFABLE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CHO CHUN CHAC ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

On January 20,1923, the defendants Cho Chun Chac and Cho Koh Liong
obtained a judgment against Pio Martinez, the son of Romana Ascue,
widow of the deceased Pedro Martinez. At the instance of the
defendants, various writs of execution of the judgment were issued and
about P17,000 of the judgment debt was collected. Thereafter, upon the
death of Romana Ascue in August, 1925, Pio Martinez inherited a
one-tenth interest in her fifty-three parcels of land and in some
personal property. Shortly afterwards, on September 1, 1925, Pio
Martinez executed a document transferring all of his inheritance to his
father-in-law, Dr. Vivencio Ramos Afable, for the alleged consideration
of P20,000 (plaintiff’s Exhibit A). On August 18, 1926, an alias
execution of the judgment above-mentioned was issued, and execution was
levied on the rights, interests, and participation of Pio Martinez in
his one- tenth share of the property left by Romana Ascue. Doctor Ramos
Afable presented a third party claim to the property attached, alleging
that he purchased it from Pio Martinez and that the transfer was
recorded on October 1, 1926, with the register of deeds of the Province
of Batangas, but the defendants herein gave bond, and the property was
sold by the sheriff and purchased by them. Thereupon the present action
was brought by Dr. Ramos Afable praying that he, by virtue of the
transfer from Pio Martinez, be declared the exclusive owner of the
property sold and that the defendants be ordered to pay the sum of
P25,000 in damages. Shortly afterwards, Doctor Afable died, and one of
his daughters, as administratrix of his estate, was substituted as
plaintiff.

Upon trial, the Court of First Instance rendered a judgment
declaring that the deed in question was executed in fraud of creditors
and therefore null and void, and absolved the defendants from the
complaint. From this judgment the plaintiff appealed.

The appellant’s contention is that beginning with August 2, 1921,
Pio Martinez on various occasions borrowed money from his
father-in-law, Dr. Ramos Afable; that on September 1, 1925, a
liquidation of the loans was made, and it is alleged that the total
amount of said loans, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per
annum, reached the sum of P15,676.51; that thereupon, on the same date,
the document Exhibit A, assigning the property interests in question to
Dr. Ramos Afable, was executed. The consideration is alleged to have
been the cancellation of the aforesaid debt plus the sum of P4,323.49,
which sum ia alleged to have been paid in cash to Pio Martinez.

According to paragraph 2 of article 1297 of the Civil Code,
alienation of property for valuable consideration, made by a person
against whom an unsatisfied judgment is outstanding, raises a
presumption of fraud, and the question here is whether the evidence
presented by the plaintiff is sufficient to rebut that presumption.

Except in regard to the loan of P1,800 made on August 2, 1921, the
evidence presented by the plaintiff is, in our opinion, insufficient.
No receipts or vales for the loans have been shown, and the testimony
of Pio Martinez is practically the only evidence before us. He and his
family lived with his father-in-law, who could not have been ignorant
of the existence of the judgment against Pio. The haste shown in
assigning the latter’s inheritance strongly indicates that the
transaction was intended to deprive the herein defendants of their
rights.

We think, however, that there is sufficient evidence in the record
to show that the loan of P1,800 to Pio Martinez on August 2,1921, was a
bona fide transaction. It was secured by an unrecorded mortgage on
several parcels of land, and though the document is not in the record,
the circumstances of the loan were such that there can be but little
doubt of its existence. At the time the loan was made, the defendants
had no judgment against Pio Martinez. It was made in good faith and
constituted a valid credit in favor of the estate of Dr. Ramos Afable,
and must therefore be considered a prior lien on the one-tenth portion
of the estate of Romana Ascue inherited by Pio Martinez and purchased
by the herein defendants at the aforesaid execution sale.

For the reasons stated, the appealed judgment is confirmed with the
modification that the sum of P1,800, with interest at the rate of 6 per
cent per annum from August 2,1921, shall constitute a prior lien in
favor of the estate of Vivencio Ramos Afable upon the portion of the
estate of Romana Ascue purchased by the defendants Cho Chun Chac and
Cho Koh Liong, as aforesaid, and that in the distribution of that
estate, said sum, with interest, shall be deducted from the one-tenth
portion, now held by the defendants, and shall be paid to the estate of
Vivencio Ramos Afable. Without costs. So ordered.

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