ALEIDA SAAVEDRA, IN HER OWN BEHALF AND IN HER CAPACITY AS GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF THE MINORS MAXIMINA, ALFONSO, AUGUSTO AND MARIA IBAÑEZ, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. RAFAEL MART…

Aleida Saavedra and her four minor children named Maximina, Alfonso,
Augusto and Maria Ibañez, brought this action in the Court of First
Instance of Leyte to annul certain deeds of sale and mortgages executed
by the defendants; to have the corresponding transfer certificate of
title issued therein as well as the annotations of the mortgages
cancelled; and to recover from the aforesaid defendants indemnity for
damages in the amount of P50,000. As ancillary remedies the plaintiffs’
also prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and of
attachment.

The plaintiffs appealed from the judgment
rendered therein, absolving all of the defendants from the complaint,
with the costs.

The spouses Aleida Saavedra and Ceferino
Ibañez had nine (9) children, three (3) of whom died. The coplaintiffs
herein, Maximina, Alfonso, Augusto and Maria, are minors and for this
reason they are represented by their mother as their guardian ad litem.

Family dissensions, the nature of which is foreign to the case,
compelled the said spouses to live separately, the plaintiff Aleida
having her four (4) minor children in her custody.

On
September 6, 1929, Aleida Saavedra and her minor children instituted
civil case No. 7057 in the Court of First Instance of Cebu praying that
she and her four children be granted a monthly allowance of P330 from
the said month of September; that the same allowance be given them
during the pendency of the suit; that a former judgment for support,
then amounting to P21,600 together with interest thereon, which they
obtained against the defendant, Ceferino Ibañez, be revived; that a
writ of preliminary injunction be issued therein to prevent the
defendant from disposing of his own property and that belonging to the
conjugal partnership; that the defendant render an accounting of his
administration of the conjugal partnership property and deliver to his
wife her corresponding share of the proceeds thereof. Upon filing the
complaint, the counsel for the plaintiffs requested the register of
deeds of Leyte to enter a notice of lis pendens on the transfer certificate of title No. 265 corresponding to the Hacienda de Burabod
belonging to the conjugal partnership of the spouses. The aforesaid
official made the necessary annotation on the certificate of title in
question. On March 31, 1930, judgment was rendered therein ordering the
defendant to pay to his wife and children a monthly allowance of P200
from the month of September, 1929, to the month of March, 1930, and the
same amount every month thereafter, payable within the first ten days
thereof, plus the sum of P2,000 for attorney’s fees, the costs and the
transcript of stenographic notes. The defendant Ibañez was notified of
the decision thus rendered on April 2, 1930. The plaintiffs took
exception to the allowance adjudicated therein and appealed from the
judgment. On September 4, 1931, this court decided the appeal and
rendered judgment in case G. R. No. 33795, the dispositive part of
which reads as follows:

“It being
understood, therefore, first, that the amount of maintenance accruing
to the plaintiff from the date of the institution of this action is at
the rate of P330 per month, amounting to P7,920, to the date of the
promulgation of this decision, which amount the defendant is directed
to pay to the plaintiff, secondly, that from and after this date she is
entitled to recover the sum of P830 per month, which the defendant is
ordered to pay into court on or before the 10th day of each month,
beginning October, 1931; thirdly, that the plaintiff is entitled to
have the encumbrance indicated in this right to maintenance inscribed
on the registry of property; and, fourthly, that this judgment is
without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to be reimbursed for
any amount, or amounts, which she may have expended from the proceeds
of her paraphernal property, or for which she may have become indebted
upon account of the necessary maintenance of herself and children prior
to the bringing of this action, the judgment appealed from, as thus
modified is affirmed.” (56 Phil., 33.)

During the pendency of the appeal, but after judgment had been rendered
by the Court of First Instance of Cebu in civil case No. 7957, Ceferino
Ibañez again conceived the idea of selling the properties belonging to
the conjugal partnership. So, about the beginning of the month of
April, 1930, he offered to sell the Hacienda de Burabod,
consisting of two parcels of land and the cattle and carabaos he
possessed, to the other defendant Rafael Martinez. Inasmuch as Martinez
was not acquainted with the hacienda, both of them went to
inspect it. Sometime later, during the first half of the month of
April, both went to the law office of Kapunan to whom Martinez
expressed his desire to purchase the aforesaid properties and inquired
whether it was possible for him to acquire them without fear of being
involved in a subsequent litigation. Ceferino Ibañez brought with him
all the deeds relating to the hacienda and cattle, including
a copy of the decision rendered in case No. 7957, all of which he
showed to the said attorney. The aforestated attorney, after examining
them, told Martinez that he could buy the properties in question
provided Ceferino Ibañez paid first the full amount of the judgment
then totalling about P3,600, excluding the costs and the amount due on
the transcript of stenographic notes. In view of this advice, Ceferino
Ibañez went to Cebu and attempted to settle his case with Attorney
Gullas who represented the plaintiffs. Ceferino Ibañez bound himself to
Gullas to pay the monthly allowance and his fees of P2,000 and proposed
that the judgment be considered satisfied after the payment thereof.
Gullas accepted the proposition on condition that Ceferino Ibañez
execute a document whereby he would bind himself not to alienate any of
the properties belonging to the conjugal partnership. Ceferino Ibañez
did not agree therewith but before returning to Leyte he deposited the
sum of P2,000 with Jose Oquiñena requesting him to pay it to Gullas and
to advance whatever might be lacking to satisfy the judgment. Oquiñena
accepted the charge and offered to make payment thereof to Gullas who
refused to accept the offer insisting on the condition he had imposed,
to wit; that Ceferino Ibañez would not dispose of the conjugal
partnership property.

Upon his return to Leyte, Ceferino
Ibañez again sought Martinez and informed him that the judgment had
already been satisfied and that they could then consummate the sale. On
April 30, 1929, they both returned to Attorney Kapunan’s law office and
informed him that the judgment had already been satisfied. Kapunan told
them that the sale could be effected after the cancellation of the
notice of lis pendens appearing on the back of the transfer
certificate of title No. 265. On May 2d of the same year, Ceferino
Ibañez went to the office of the register of deeds who, motu proprio,
cancelled the notice of lis pendens. Pursuant thereto,
Attorney Kapunan, on the said date of May 2d, prepared the deed of
sale, Exhibit C, whereby Ceferino Ibañez conveyed the Hacienda de Burabod,
together with his cattle and carabao to Rafael Martinez, for the sum of
P45,000. Martinez paid him P30,000 in cash and constituted a mortgage
on the said hacienda in favor of the vendor, for the unpaid
balance of P15,000. Sometime later, Martinez went to Cebu and was
informed by Oquiñena that the judgment was still unsatisfied. Ceferino
Ibañez reassured Martinez that he would pay it, but the truth of the
matter is that he never satisfied the same Subsequently, the plaintiffs
obtained a writ of attachment and the sum of P2,000 in the hands of
Oquiñena was attached and delivered to the provincial sheriff in whose
possession it still remains. Ceferino Ibañez planned to move to
Mindanao and requested Martinez to secure the money with which to pay
the remaining P15,000. On May 13, 1930, Martinez obtained a loan of
P15,000 from the other defendant, W. S. Price, which he paid to
Ceferino Ibañez in payment of the balance he owed him, cancelling the
mortgage in favor of the said Ceferino Ibañez and executing the
mortgage deed, Exhibit E, in favor of Price. After the execution of the
deed of sale, Martinez obtained the cancellation of transfer
certificate of title No. 265 and the register of deeds issued in his
name transfer certificate of title No. 294 on the reverse of which and
on the original an annotation of the mortgage in favor of Price was
made. After these transactions, Ceferino Ibañez left for Spain, where
he is now residing, leaving no known property whatsoever.

The appellants assign fourteen (14) alleged errors as committed by the
trial court in the decision appealed from. To discuss them separately
would consume much unnecessary time. We are of the opinion that the
whole question may be reduced to whether or not Martinez and Price had
notice of the judgment rendered in civil case No. 7957 and of the fact
that it still remained unsatisfied.

Article 1297 of the
Civil Code presumes fraudulent alienations made by a person against
whom any judgment in any instance has been previously rendered, or
against whom any writ of attachment has been issued. In view of the
court’s findings, there is not the least shadow of a doubt that the
sale made by Ceferino Ibañez in favor of Martinez bears the earmarks of
such presumption on the ground that it was made after judgment had been
rendered against him in civil case No. 6957. Furthermore, before
Martinez bought the hacienda and the cattle, he had full
knowledge of the fact that the judgment in question had not yet been
satisfied. He had notice thereof from Ceferino Ibañez as well as from
the advice given by Attorney Kapunan aside from the presumption that he
must have read the copy of the judgment in the hands of Ceferino Ibañez
together with the other deeds or documents relating thereto. That he
was led to believe the false manifestation of Ceferino Ibañez to the
effect that he had already paid the amount of the judgment is
immaterial and does not exempt him from liability. Under the
circumstances he was in duty bound to verify by means of appropriate
documents which, in this case, should be either a certificate of the
sheriff who executed the judgment, or of the clerk of the court, or a
statement of the judge who tried the case, whether or not the judgment
had really been satisfied.

Such is not the case with Price.
When he granted the loan and the mortgage deed, Exhibit E, was executed
in his favor, the register of deeds had already cancelled the
annotation of lis pendens on transfer certificate of title
No. 294. Under such circumstances, Price can not justly be charged with
having acted in bad faith. Neither do the foregoing facts justify the
presumption or inference that he had notice of the fact that the
judgment rendered against Ceferino Ibañez still remained unsatisfied.
In view of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, we are
compelled to conclude that Price is a mortgage creditor in good faith
and that he granted the loan of P15,000 in the absolute belief that
Martinez was the true registered owner of the hacienda in question.

We concur in the trial court’s opinion that the register of deeds,
Ciriaco Ibañez, acted properly and in good faith in cancelling the
annotation of lis pendens, on the ground that the action
brought by the plaintiffs in that particular case was not of such
nature as to entitle them to have the encumbrance in question noted.

Lastly, we concur with the trial court in that the evidence presented
does not justify the plaintiffs’ claim for the indemnification of
damages sought by them.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed
from is hereby modified to the effect that the deed of sale, Exhibit C,
executed by Ceferino Ibañez in favor of Rafael Martinez is declared
rescinded and without force and effect, and the register of deeds of
Leyte is hereby ordered to cancel transfer certificate of title No. 294
issued in favor of the said Martinez, and to issue, in lieu thereof,
another transfer certificate of title in favor of Ceferino Ibañez and
his wife, Aleida Saavedra, with a notation thereon of (1) the mortgage
constituted in favor of W. S. Price to secure the payment of the sum of
P15,000 and (2) the judgment rendered by this court in case G. R. No.
33795, civil case No. 7957 of the Court of First Instance of Cebu;
without prejudice to any right of action which Rafael Martinez may have
against Ceferino Ibañez in accordance with the law. As thus modified,
the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects,
with the costs of both instances against Ceferino Ibañez and Rafael
Martinez. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Villa-Real, and Hull, JJ., concur.