ESTANISLAO REYES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. SEBASTIANA MARTINEZ ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This action was instituted on March 18, 1927, in the Court of First Instance
of the Province of Laguna by Estanislao Reyes against the Martinez heirs upon
four several causes of action in which the plaintiff seeks, first, to recover
five parcels of land, containing approximately one thousand coconut trees, said
parcels being fully described in paragraph IX of the complaint, and to obtain a
declaration of ownership in his own favor as against the defendants with respect
to said parcels; secondly, to recover from the defendants the sum of P9,377.50,
being the alleged proceeds of some 1,860 coconut trees which, prior to July 31,
1926, had been applied to the benefit of said defendants; thirdly, to recover
from the defendants the sum of P43,000, as the alleged value of the proceeds of
the lands involved in the receivership in the case of Martinez vs. Graño, G. R.
No. 27685, to which the plaintiff supposes himself to be entitled, but which
have gone, so he claims, to the benefit of the defendants in said receivership;
and fourthly, to recover the sum of P10,000 from the defendants as damages
resulting from their improper meddling in the administration of the receivership
property. In connection with this complaint the plaintiff obtained, several
months after the litigation, was! begun, an attachment against the defendants
upon a judgment credit for P8,000 awarded to them in the case of Martinez vs.
Graño (51 Phil., 287), with the result that the execution of said money judgment
against the plaintiff has been suspended since the record in said case was
returned to the trial court. In reply to the complaint the defendants filed an
answer and cross-complaint in which the defendants sought to recover damages and
interest upon their claim against the plaintiff. Upon hearing the cause, the
trial court absolved the defendants from the complaint and also absolved the
plaintiff from the cross-complaint of the defendants, without express
pronouncement as to costs. From this judgment both parties appealed.

A necessary preliminary to an intelligent understanding of the present
litigation is found in the statement of facts and discussion contained in
Martinez vs. Graño (51 Phil., 287), a case which, it was hoped, would be the
conclusion of a long drawn-out litigation prosecuted by the Martinez heirs, in
the first place, against Clemencia Graño, and in the second place, against
Estanislao Reyes, the latter of whom had, for several years, been acting as
receiver of the properties involved in said litigation. It will be noted that
the case referred to was decided on December 24, 1927, while the present action
was instituted more than nine months prior thereto.

From the general history of the litigation it will be collected that the
plaintiff in the present case has been laboring along for several years in an
unsuccessful legal battle with the defendants, springing from his claim to be
the owner of the property involved in the receivership. Upon examination of the
pleadings in the present case it is very evident that the trial court was
correct in holding that the second, third, and fourth causes of action relate to
matters which were either expressly adjudicated against Reyes in the litigation
mentioned, or which were so involved in the controversy that he is concluded as
to said matters by the decision that was made in that case. The matter stated in
the first cause of action requires more careful consideration.

This cause of action is founded upon the contract, the substance of which is
sketched at pages 288-289 of the opinion of this court in Martinez vs. Graño (51
Phil., 287), and the claim put forth by the plaintiff in respect thereto is to
have the five parcels mentioned in paragraph IX of the complaint adjudged to him
in lieu of another parcel formerly supposed to contain one thousand trees and
described in paragraph 8 of the contract of March 5, 1921, between him and
certain of the Martinez heirs. By this contract Reyes was to be given the parcel
described in clause 8, but in a proviso to said clause, the parties contracting
with Reyes agreed to assure to him certain other land containing was equivalent
number of trees in case he should so elect. The prior history of the litigation
shows that the herein plaintiff elected to take and hold the parcel described in
clause 8, and his right thereto has all along been recognized in the
dispositions made by the court with respect to said land. In our decision in
Martinez vs. Graño (51 Phil., 287, 301), it was a basal assumption that Reyes
would obtain the thousand trees referred to; and we are of the opinion that,
from various steps taken in the prior litigation, Reyes must be taken to have
elected to take that particular parcel and he is now estopped from asserting a
contrary election to take the five parcels of land described in paragraph IX of
his complaint.

But the fact is now brought out more clearly that the title to this parcel is
in the heirs of Inocente Martinez and it does not appear that they have
transferred said title to Reyes. It results therefore that Reyes now has a claim
for damages against the parties signatory to the contract of March 5, 1921, for
the value of the aforesaid property. Furthermore, we are able to state from the
facts revealed in the course of the litigation that the value of said thousand
trees should be about P8,000. We therefore reach the conclusion that Reyes
should either have the land originally set apart for him under clauses 4 and 8
of the contract, or, in case his right thereto should fail, he should not be
required to pay the judgment for P8,000 which was awarded to the Martinez heirs
in Martinez vs. Graño (51 Phil., 287, 302). This end will accordingly be
effected in the manner set forth in the following paragraph, containing the
dispositive part of this decision.

The Martinez heirs, defendants in this action, will be allowed a period of
three months, extendible, if necessary, for a reasonable term in the discretion
of the trial court, within which to procure the execution of a sufficient deed
conveying to the plaintiff, Estanislao Reyes, the particular parcel of land
described in paragraph 8 of the contract of March 5, 1921; and until such deed
shall be executed and delivered, or tendered, to Reyes, the judgment against
Reyes in favor of the Martinez heirs for the sum of P8,000, shall stand
temporarily enjoined. And in the event that the said Martinez heirs should fail
to procure said conveyance to be made within the term conceded to them, the
judgment in their favor for said P8,000 shall be permanently enjoined.

In view of the conclusion reached in Martinez vs. Graño (51 Phil., 287), as
well as in view of the solution reached in the case now before us, the claim of
the defendants, as appellants, to the interest on the sum of P8,000 from July
31, 1926, cannot be conceded, as the judgment itself bears interest at the
lawful rate from the date the same was rendered.

So ordered, without express pronouncement as to costs.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and
Villa-Real, JJ., concur.