RAYMUNDO TANSIOCO ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. FELICIANO RAMOSO ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the
Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija involving the title to four
tracts of rice land situated in the municipality of San Jose in said
province as more particularly described in paragraph 7 of the
plaintiffs’ petition.

The petition recites that the defendants Feliciano Ramoso and
Lucia Matias Viuda de Tinio are the administrators of the estate of
Casimiro Tinio; that the defendant Rafaela Tecson is the administratrix
of the estate of Sebastian Tansioco ; that the plaintiffs are the
legitimate children of said Sebastian Tansioco and Serapia Serrano, the
latter having died in the year 1913 and the former in the year 1926;
that during their marriage they acquired as community property (bienes gananciales)
the four tracts of land described in paragraph 7; that after the death
of Serapia Serrano, Sebastian contracted a second marriage on March 30,
1916, with the defendant Rafaela Tecson.

It is further alleged that without the knowledge or consent of the
plaintiffs, Sebastian Tansioco as administrator of the properties of
his deceased wife Serapia Serrano, on December 29, 1922, obtained a
decree in a cadastral case of San Jose registering the title to the
fourth parcel mentioned in paragraph 7 in the name of himself and
Rafaela Tecson, his second wife, as their community property; that on
November 19, 1925, they likewise obtained decrees registering in their
names as their community property the other lands involved in this
suit; that all of said lands are the community property of the first
marriage of Sebastian Tansioco, that is to say, community property of
Sebastian and Serapia, and therefore an undivided half of the same is
the absolute property of the plaintiffs as the sole heirs of the said
Serapia Serrano, the first wife of Sebastian Tansioco.

For their second cause of action, the plaintiffs allege that after
the death of Serapia Serrano, Sebastian Tansioco, in his capacity as
administrator of the estate of Serapia, without the knowledge or
consent of the plaintiffs or judicial authority, sold all of the
aforesaid tracts of land with pacto de retro to Casimiro Tinio for the sum of P33.800; that said sale is null and void.

For the third cause of action, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants Feliciano Ramoso and Lucia Vda. de Tinio, in their capacity
as administrators of the estate of Casimiro Tinio, took possession of
the lands mentioned and for the past nine years have been cultivating
the same; that said lands produce annually 1,200 cavanes making a total of 10,800 cavanes
of palay which are worth P2.50 a cavan; that said defendants refused to
surrender possession and still refuse, to the damage of the plaintiffs
in the sum of P27,000.

The plaintiffs pray that they be declared the absolute owners of an
undivided half interest in said lands; that the said sale with pacto de retro
to Casimiro Tinio be declared void as to the said one-half undivided
interest of the plaintiffs; that the administrators of the estate of
Casimiro Tinio be required to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P27,000 as
damages and be ordered to vacate said lands.

The defendant Rafaela Tecson, administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband, Sebastian Tansioco, filed a general denial.

The defendants and appellants here filed an amended answer and
cross-complaint in which they make a general denial to the allegations
of the petition and set up as special defense among others that all the
land which is the subject matter of this action has been registered in
accordance with the Land Registration Act and Torrens title thereto
issued in favor of Sebastian Tansioco and Rafaela Tecson. It is further
recited that Casimiro Tinio went into lawful possession of the land in
the year 1923 under a deed of sale with pacto de retro, dated
September 5, 1922, whereby Sebastian Tansioco and Rafaela Tecson
transferred the lands to Tinio for the consideration of P33,800; that
on July 12, 1923, during the cadastral case proceedings in San Jose,
Nueva Ecija, the said contract of sale was, by agreement of all the
parties, converted into a mortgage at six per cent interest per annum
payable on September 5, 1924. The defendants admit that they have since
been in possession of the land; that said debt of P33,800 together with
interest from September 5, 1922, has not been paid in spite of repeated
demands.

They pray for judgment for the sum of P33,800 with six per cent
interest from September 5, 1922, and a credit of P1,218.31 paid for
land taxes and P2,711.37 paid for irrigation charges.

Rafaela Tecson, on her own behalf and as administratrix of the
estate of Sebastian Tansioco, filed a demurrer to the cross-complaint
of her codefendants Feliciano Ramoso and Lucia Matias Viuda de Tinio,
the administrators of the estate of Casimiro Tinio, which was overruled
whereupon she filed a general denial to the counter-demand and a
special defense in which she admitted the agreement of July 12, 1923,
converting the sale with pacto de retro into a mortgage for
the sum of P33,800 as aforesaid and alleges that the creditor was to
remain in possession of the land until the debt was paid; that said
contract was not in reality a mortgage but rather a contract of antichresis;
that under such a contract the creditor is required to render account
of the products of the land which has never been done to this date; she
prays that the administrators of the estate of Casimiro Tinio be
required to pay her the sum of P42,196.26 and to surrender to her the
possession of the land.

The administrators of the estate of Casimiro Tinio answered the
counterclaim of their codefendant Rafaela Tecson with the allegation
that the only benefit which the estate of Casimiro Tinio has received
from the possession of said lands is 250 cavanes of palay
yearly from April 18, 1923; that in addition to the land taxes and
irrigation charges mentioned above, they have incurred an expense of
P102 for making a necessary subdivision of a portion of the land, as a
result of which title No. 847 was issued in the name of Sebastian
Tansioco and Rafaela Tecson, and they pray for judgment against Rafaela
Tecson for the sum of P4,031.62 as reimbursement of the aforesaid
charges together with interest thereon.

The following stipulation of facts agreed upon by al the parties was filed November 25, 1931:

“1. That all the plaintiffs are of legal age, and
are the legitimate heirs of the deceased spouses, Sebastian Tansioco
and Serapia Serrano, which spouses have been legally married on May 23,
1898, in Victoria, Tarlac.

“2. That Serapia Serrano died on December 4, 1913, and Sebastian Tansioco died on March 11, 1926.

“3. That on March 30, 1916, Sebastian Tansioco legally married the defendant, Rafaela Tecson.

“4. That Rafaela Tecson is the judicial administratrix of the
properties left by the deceased Sebastian Tansioco and Serapia Serrano,
duly and legally appointed and qualified as such administratrix on
August 9, 1926, in civil case No. 4153 of this court which is still
pending and unfinished for the reason that there is no final settlement
of the said properties. So that the defendant, Rafaela Tecson, is not
only the judicial administratrix of the deceased Sebastian Tansioco but
she is also the judicial and legal administratrix of the properties
left by the deceased Serapia Serrano, until the present date.

“5. That the defendants, Feliciano Ramoso and Lucia Y. Matias Viuda de
Tinio, are the legal administrators of the properties left by the
deceased Casimiro Tinio, by virtue of an appointment by this court as
such administrators in civil case No. 3141, which is likewise pending
in this court.

“6. That Sebastian Tansioco in his lifetime
acquired all the properties described in paragraph seven (7) of the
first cause of action in the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint dated
August 25, 1931.

“7. That parcels Nos. 1, 2, and a portion
of parcel No 3 described in said paragraph 7 of the second amended
complaint correspond to lot No. 2235, of the cadastral survey of San
Jose, Nueva Ecija, which lot has been registered in accordance with the
Land Registration Act in the names of the spouses, Sebastian Tansioco
and Rafaela Tecson, as their conjugal property as evidenced by original
certificate of title No. 7377 issued in their names on April 13, 1927,
by the register of deeds for the Province of Nueva Ecija.

“8. That the remaining portion of parcel No. 8 of the said paragraph 7
of the second amended complaint corresponds to lot No. 2233-A, of the
cadastral survey of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, which lot has been
registered also in the names of the said spouses, Sebastian Tansioco
and Rafaela Tecson, in accordance with the Land Registration Act and
with the decision of this court in cadastral case No. 9 rendered on
November 19, 1925, which decision is now firm and final.

“9.
That parcel No. 4 in the said paragraph 7 of the said second amended
complaint corresponds to lot No. 2234 of the cadastral survey of San
Jose, Nueva Ecija, which has been adjudicated and registered in the
name of Sebastian Tansioco, married to Rafaela Tecson, in accordance
with the Land Registration Act as evidenced by original certificate of
title No. 5294 issued in his name on September 13, 1926, by the
register of deeds for the Province of Nueva Ecija.

“10. That
on September 5, 1922, Sebastian Tansioco and Rafaela Tecson sold the
above-mentioned properties, lots Nos. 2233-A and 2235, and also lots
Nos. 1872 and 3622, and also lot C of the subdivision plan, which lot
C, is more particularly described in transfer certificate of title No.
847, issued in the name of Sebastian Tansioco and Rafaela Tecson by the
register of deeds for the Province of Nueva Ecija, which contract of
sale is hereby attached marked as Exhibit 1-Ramoso, the genuineness of
which is admitted by the parties altho the said exhibit is a mere copy
of its original, in favor of Casimiro Tinio for the amount of P33,800,
which are the lands described in the cross-complaint of the defendants,
Feliciano Ramoso and Lucia Y. Matias, against the other defendant,
Rafaela Tecson.

“11. That this contract of sale, Exhibit
1-Ramoso, on July 12, 1923, during the cadastral proceedings in San
Jose, Nueva Ecija, was converted and changed to a mere mortgage with
six per cent (6%) interest per annum on the said amount of P33,800,
from the first day of January, 1923, and payable on September 5, 1924,
by agreement of the parties with the approval of the court, in order
that the said Sebastian Tansioco and Rafaela Tecson would not be
dispossessed of their whole properties described in the said contract
of sale.

“12. That neither the said amount of P33,800, nor
its interest of six per cent (6%) per annum from January 1, 1923, has
been paid by the said Sebastian Tansioco and Rafaela Tecson until the
present time. This agreement of non-payment of the said amounts, shall
not in anyway affect the theory of the defendant, Rafaela Tecson, that
the said contract of mortgage is one of antichresis and that
said sum of P33,800 together with interest thereon has already been
paid in full with the application of the products of said land, which
theory is denied by the defendants, Feliciano Ramoso and Lucia Y.
Matias.

“13. That lot No. 1872 of the cadastral survey of
San Jose, described in original certificate of title No. 5259, issued
in the name of Sebastian Tansioco, by the register of deeds of Nueva
Ecija, was mortgaged to the deceased, Casimiro Tinio, on July 12, 1923,
in the sum of two hundred pesos (P200) with twelve per cent (12%)
interest per annum from July 12, 1923, payable on March 30, 1926, and
which mortgage is not included in the claim of the defendant Rafaela
Tecson, regarding antichresis. This amount of P200 together with the
interest thereon from July 12, 1923, has not yet been paid by the said
Sebastian Tansioco and Rafaela Tecson until the present time.

“14. That parcel No. 1 in paragraph 7 of the said second amended
complaint of the plaintiffs is the same and corresponds to parcel No. 7
of the land described in the contract of sale, Exhibit 1-Ramoso.

“15. That parcel No. 2 of the said paragraph 7 of the second amended
complaint is the same and corresponds to parcel No. 9 of the land
described in the contract of sale, Exhibit 1-Ramoso.

“16.
That parcel No. 3 of the said paragraph 7 of the second amended
complaint is the same and corresponds to parcel No. 6 of the land
described in the said contract of Bale, Exhibit 1-Ramoso.

“17. That parcel No. 4 of the said paragraph 7 of the second amended
complaint is the same and corresponds to parcel No. 2 of the land
described in the said contract of sale, Exhibit 1-Ramoso.

“18. That the land east of parcel No. 7 of the contract of sale,
Exhibit 1-Ramoso, was previous to Sebastian Tansioco, the property of
Juan Lozano, and the land west of the said parcel 7 was bought by
Mariano Francisco from Pedro Balangue. This parcel No. 7 is also
bounded on the west by the Panlasian Creek.

“19. That
neither Sebastian Tansioco and Rafaela Tecson nor the plaintiffs herein
has paid the irrigation charges and land taxes to the Government of the
Philippine Islands from 1922 until the present time for the said lots
Nos. 2233-A, 2234, 2235, and lot C of the subdivision plan described in
title No. 847.

“20. That the defendants, Feliciano Ramoso
and Lucia Y. Matias, have paid the amount of P1,218.31 for land taxes
and the amount of P2,711.37 for irrigation charges to the Government of
the Philippine Islands from 1922 until the present date corresponding
to lots Nos. 2233-A, 2234, 2235, and the said lot C.

“21.
That the defendants, Feliciano Ramoso and Lucia Y. Matias Viuda de
Tinio are in possession of lots Nos. 2233-A, 2234, 2235, and lot C
described in title No. .847, from April 18, 1923, up to the present
date. This admission, however, shall not affect the defense, and is
subject to the claim, of said defendants, Feliciano Ramoso and Lucia Y.
Matias, that the only benefit which they derive from the said lands is
the annual rental of 250 cavanes of palay for the reason that
those lands have been leased to other persons and that the said benefit
derived from the lands should be applied for the payment of the
interests of the said mortgages.

“22. That the average price of one cavan of palay from 1924 to April, 1931, is P2.50.

“23. That the area of lot No. 2233-A is 1 hectare, 18 ares and 23 centares (11,823 square meters).

“24. That the said mortgages of P33,800 and P200, respectively, in
favor of Casimiro Tinio, which are admitted in this stipulation of
facts are registered and noted in the decisions and certificates of
title corresponding to lots Nos. 2233-A, 2233, 1872, 3622, and lot C of
the subdivision plan described in title No. 847. That said incumbrances
to the said land are the only lien or incumbrances: noted and
registered in the said decisions and titles, with the exception ‘of the
incumbrances mentioned in” article 39 of said Law as may be subsisting,
and to a first lien in favor of the Insular Government to guarantee the
payment of the special taxes assessed pursuant to the provisions of
section 18 of Act No. 2259, as amended by Act No. 3081. “

The trial court filed an exhaustive decision covering fifty-five
printed pages in the bill of exceptions, the dispositive part of which
is as follows:

“En su virtud, el juzgado opina que debe fallar y falla esta causa;

“1.° En cuanto a la demanda, (A) En su primer motivo de accion: (1) se
declara a los demandantes duenos absolutos de la mitad proindiviso de
las cuatro parcelas de terreno objeto de su segunda demanda enmendada;
(2) se ordena a la demandada Rafaela Tecson para que en su nombre y
como administradora del intestado del finado Sebastian Tansioco,
otorgue escritura de traspaso a favor de los demandantes de dicha mitad
en cada uno de dichos terrenos, o sea (a) sobre el lote 2235
del Expediente Catastral 9, Record 968 de San Jose, Nueva ficija, con
certificado de titulo No. 7377 expedido a nombre de Sebastian Tansioco
y Rafaela Tecson en 13 de abril de 1927, (b) sobre el lote
2233-A del mismo Expediente Catastral adjudicado a Sebastian Tansioco y
Rafaela Tecson en decision de 19 de noviembre de 1925, y (c)
sobre el lote 2234 del mismo Expediente Catastral con certificado
original de titulo No. 5294 a nombre de los mismos Tansioco y Tecson,
de 13 de septiembre, 1926, debiendo estas escrituras ser otorgadas en
la forma y con las solemnidades legates requeridas para ser
inscribibles, libres de carga y gravamen; y (3) se ordena a los
demandados Feliciano Ramoso y Lucia Matias, administradores de Casimiro
Tinio, a entregar dicha mitad a los demandantes. (B) En su segundo
motivo de accion, se declara nulo el gravamen que sobre dicha mitad fue
constituido por convenio entre Sebastian Tansioco y la administracidn
del finado Casimiro Tinio, representada por sus administrado-v res los
demandados Feliciano Ramoso y Lucia Matias. (C) En su tercer motivo de
accion, se ordena a estos administradores que en su referido concepto
paguen a los demandantes el saldo a favor de estos por la cantidad de
P11,069.18 de acuerdo con los pronunciamientos en las paginas 36 y 37
de esta decision, en indemnizacion por la ocupacion de esa mitad de
terrenos.

“2.° En cuanto a la reconvencion de estos demandados contra los demandantes, (a)
se absuelve a estos del primer extremo, o sea en cuanto al pago de los
treinta y tres mil ochocientos (P33,800) pesos y sus intereses en
gravamen constituido sobre todos los terrenos que han sido objeto del
convenio aludido en el segundo motivo de accion de la segunda demanda
enmendada; y (b) en cuanto al 2.° extremo, o sea al reembolso
de las cantidades pagadas en amillaramiento y derechos de riego, estese
a lo resuelto en el tercer motivo de accion de dicha demanda.

“3.° En cuanto a la contrademanda de los demandados Feliciano Ramoso y
Lucia Matias, administradores de Casimiro Tinio, y su reconvencion en
escrito de 7 de diciembre, 1931 contra la demandada Rafaela Tecson por
si y como administradora de Sebastian Tansioco, (1) se ordena a esta
ultima en sus referidos conceptos a pagar a aquellos en su tambien
aludido concepto, la cantidad de treinta y tres mil ochocientos
CP33,800) pesos con sus intereses desde el 5 de septiembre de 1922
hasta su completo pago; del cual deberan deducirse (a) el saldo de Pl,121.64 mencionados en la pagina 49 de esta decision, y (b)
los frutos o rentas que vaya percibiendo la administracion de Casimiro
Tinio en los terrenos por ella ocupados, de acuerdo con esta decision
en cuanto a la demanda, cuya posesion podra retener dicha
administracion mientras no se verifigue el pago completo que tiene
derecho a recobrar de dicha contrademandada Rafaela Tecson; (2) se le
ordena tambien a dicha Rafaela Tecson, por si y como administradora de
Sebastian Tansioco, a pagar a los referidos administradores del finado
Casimiro Tinio la cantidad de doscientos pesos con sus intereses al 12
por ciento al ano desde el julio 12, 1923, hasta su pago completo que
debera verificarse dentro de tres meses desde que sea firme esta
decision, y si pasado dicho termino dejare de pagarse dicho importe, se
ordena la venta en publica subasta de la finca hipotecada en garantfa
de dicho prestamo o sea el lote No. 1872 del catastro de San Jose”,
Nueva ficija, con certificado de titulo No. 5259 de fecha 13 de
septiembre, 1926, aplicandose el producto de dicha venta al pago de
esta parte de la sentencia.

“4.° En cuanto a la
reconvencion de Rafaela Tecson contra la administracion de Casimiro
Tinio sobre las cantidades liquidas que en anticresis reclama contra
dicha administracion, se absuelve de ella a los referidos
administradores en cuanto excede de lo resuelto en el inciso (a)
del parrafo 3.e de esta decision, resultante de la liquidation y
pronunciamientos en la pagina 49 de la misma, a cuya resolucion debe
estarse.

“5.° En cuanto a la contrademanda de Rafaela
Tecson contra la administracion de Casimiro Tinio, no ha lugar a
ordenar la devolution de los terrenos a que se contrae, (a) por no haberse probado que todos ellos se hallan en poder de dicha administracion, (b)
porque de las cinco parcelas poseidas por esta, la mitad de las cuatro
de ellas se declara ser de la pertenencia de los demandantes con orden
de entrega y traspaso a los mismos, y (c) porque sobre la otra
mitad y la parcela lote C existe derecho de retencidn en anticresis a
favor de dichos administradores ordenada en el inciso (b), parrafo 3.° de esta decision. Sin pronunciamiento de costas.”

The appellants Feliciano Ramoso and Lucia Matias Viuda de Tinio, the
administrators of the estate of Casimiro Tinio, assign fifteen errors
of which we deem it necessary to comment on the following only:

“The lower court erred:

“3. In declaring that the four parcels of land described in the
complaint are the conjugal properties of the deceased spouses,
Sebastian Tansioco and Serapia Serrano.

“5. In holding that sales and mortgages executed by a surviving husband affecting conjugal properties are null and void.

“6. In declaring that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of one
half undivided interest in the four parcels of land described in the
complaint.

“7. In ordering the defendant, Rafaela Tecson,
in her own name and in her capacity as the administratrix of the estate
of the deceased, Sebastian Tansioco, to execute a contract of transfer,
which can be registered in the register of deeds of Nueva Ecija in
favor of the plaintiffs, of one half of the said four parcels of land,
lots Nos. 2233-A, 2234, and 2235, free from any lien or incumbrance.

“8. In declaring null and void the mortgage noted in the titles of the
said lands with regards to its one-half undivided interest.

“9. In ordering the defendants-appellants to pay to the plaintiffs the amount of ?ll,069.18.

“10. In absolving the plaintiffs from paying to the
defendant-appellants the amount of P33,800 together with its interests
of 6 per cent per annum from January 1, 1923, until they are completely
paid.

“12. In not ordering the defendant, Rafaela Tecson,
in her own representation and in her capacity as administratrix of the
estate of the deceased, Sebastian Tansioco, to pay the said amount of
P33,800 together with its interests to the defendant-appellants, within
the period of three months from the date of the judgment.

“13. In not ordering the sale of the said lands, lots Nos. 2233-A,
2234, 2235, 2622, and lot C of the subdivision plan described in title
No. 847, after the said period of three months, to satisfy the
judgment.”

It is established by the evidence—and so found by the trial
court—that all of the lands here in question were acquired by Sebastian
Tansioco after the death of his first wife, Serapia Serrano. There is
no evidence in the record that they were paid for with funds in which
Serapia had any interest. Exhibit A, an abortive extrajudicial
partition of the conjugal properties of Sebastian Tansioco and his
deceased wife Serapia Serrano in which the lands here involved were
included, might well be an admission against interest as regards
Sebastian Tansioco but not as regards Casimiro Tinio who was not a
party thereto and knew nothing of it. On the other hand, the plaintiffs
who are parties thereto, knew of the existence of Exhibit A but
asserted no right thereunder and presented no claim against the
registration of the titles to these lands when the Torrens certificates
were issued in favor of Sebastian Tansioco and Rafaela Tecson.

It is recited in paragraph 24 of the agreed statement of facts that
the mortgages here involved of P33,800 and P200 respectively in favor
of Casimiro Tinio were registered and noted in the decisions and
certificates of title obtained as aforesaid by Sebastian Tansioco and
Rafaela Tecson in the land registration case. There is no evidence of
fraud on the part of Casimiro Tinio in any of the proceedings proven by
the evidence or even alleged in the complaint.

Even assuming that the lands in question had been the conjugal
property of Sebastian Tansioco and Serapia Serrano, the sale made on
September 5, 1922, by Sebastian Tansioco to Casimiro Tinio and the
agreement between them to have the same noted as an incumbrance on the
certificates of title was valid and binding under the provisions of
section 685 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there being no evidence of
fraud in the transactions. It is to be noted that these transactions
took place before the approval of Act No. 3176 on November 24, 1924,
which amended section 685 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It results that the Torrens titles issued as recited in the agreed
statement of facts must be upheld and the appellants’ assignments of
error numbers 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 must be sustained and all three causes
of action of the complaint must be dismissed.

Upon the cross-complaint of the administrators of the estate of
Casimiro Tinio, it is clear that they are entitled to recover against
Rafaela Tecson, as administratrix of the estate of Sebastian Tansioco
and Rafaela Tecson, the said debt of P33,800 together with interest at
6 per cent per annum from September 5,1922, and the lien or incumbrance
noted on the Torrens certificates should be foreclosed. The appellants
state in their brief (page 32) that it is immaterial to them whether
the said incumbrance be treated as a mortgage as they claim or as a
contract of antichresis as the lower court held. The
appellee, Rafaela Tecson, insists upon the application of article 1881
of the Civil Code and asks for affirmance of the judgment holding the
contract to be one of antichresis and that the account as
stated by her and reproduced on pages 48 to 50 of the Bill of
Exceptions should be applied. The court below rejected this account and
we see no reason for reversing the court’s decision in that respect.

Upon the counter-demand of Feliciano Ramoso and Lucia Matias Viuda
de Tinio, administrators of the estate of Casimiro Tinio, the decision
of the court below is modified in this respect: that the said defendant
Rafaela Tecson personally and as administratrix of the estate of
Sebastian Tansioco, is ordered and required to pay to the said
administrators of the estate of Casimiro Tinio the sum of P33,800 with
interest at the rate of 6 per cent from September 5, 1922, until paid,
less the net gain which the said administrators have received from the
lands here involved to the date of trial, P2,955.88, and less such net
sum as the said administrators may have received from the lands covered
by said incumbrance to the date of foreclosure as hereafter provided.

It is further ordered and adjudged that Rafaela Tecson personally
and as administratrix of the estate of Sebastian Tansioco pay to the
said administrators the sum of with interest at the rate of twelve per
cent (12%) per annum from July 12, 1923, until fully paid.

It is further ordered and adjudged that the said sums of money be
paid to said administrators within six months from and after the date
on which this decision becomes final and that in default of such
payment, lots Nos. 2233-A, 2234, 2235, 3622 and lot C of subdivision
plan described in title No. 847 and lot No, 1872 of the cadasfral
survey of San Jose described in certificate No. 5259 more particularly
described in the agreed statement of facts shall be sold and the
respective incumbrances on said lots foreclosed and the proceeds of
said sales applied to the payment of the said debts, following the
procedure prescribed in section 257 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The judgment of the court below dismissing the counterdemand of
Rafaela Tecson against the administrators of Casimiro Tinio (paragraph
5, page 119, Bill of Exceptions) is affirmed.

The judgment of the court below is modified as above stated and the
cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this
opinion. Without special pronouncement as to costs in this instance.

Street, Abad Santos, Goddard, and Diaz, JJ., concur.