TOMAS MATIENZO AND AUEELIO PALILEO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA-, GUADALUPB SAN JOSE, ADRIANA FRANCISCO DE GUILATCO, AND THE PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LAG…

Tomas Matienzo and Aurelio Palileo filed a
petition for certiorari against the Court of First Instance of Laguna,
Guadalupe San Jose, Adriana Francisco de Guilatco and the provincial
sheriff of Laguna, alleging that the respondent court, at the instance
of Guadalupe San Jose and Adriana Francisco de Guilatco, abused its
discretion by ordering, in spite of their objections made in writing,
the delivery to said respondents of the parcels of land described in
paragraph 3, subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of their petition, particularly that under letter (a),
thereby depriving them of their real right to the lands in question,
without due process of law; and that they have no other more speedy and
adequate remedy for the protection of their rights than to resort to
the petition for certiorari.

The pertinent facts of the case are as follows: On February 16,
1930, the spouses Raymundo Ysaac and Antonina Alay mortgaged the three
parcels of land described in said paragraph 3 of the petition to Dr. M.
D. Calupitan, to secure the payment of a debt of P1,000 which they had
contracted with him, promising to pay the same on or before May 8, 1930.

A few days before the obligation became due, that is, on April 12,
1930, Dr. M. D. Calupitan transferred his credit to Guadalupe San Jose.
Inasmuch as the Ysaacs refused to pay her the credit in question,
notwithstanding the fact that the period granted to them for said
purpose had already elapsed, Guadalupe San Jose instituted civil case
No. 5480 against them in the Court of First Instance of Laguna to
compel them to make such payment. After the trial the court rendered
judgment against said spouses, ordering them to pay to the plaintiff
the above-stated sum of P1,000. They did not have any better luck on.
appeal because this court affirmed the appealed judgment in toto on October 31, 1931 (G. R. No. 35074 [66 Phil., 808]).

On January 5, 1932, the trial court, upon petition of the
respondent Guadalupe San Jose, issued the corresponding writ of
execution of the judgment, and the sheriff of Laguna, by virtue of said
writ, proceeded to attach all the rights, interest and participation of
the Isaac spouses in the lands in question, preparatory to selling them
later at public auction. However, before the day of the sale arrived,
Tomas Matienzo. and Maria Carcalin, who claimed to have purchased with the
lands in question from the spouses Raymundo Ysaac and Antonina Alay,
filed a third party claim. Nine days later, the above-stated third
party claimants brought an action against the sheriff and Guadalupe San
Jose asking that they be declared owners of said lands and that a writ
of preliminary injunction be issued to restrain the sheriff from
proceeding with the sale of the lands in question, thereby instituting
civil case No. 5952 entitled “Tomas Matienzo and Maria Carcalin,
plaintiffs, vs. Guadalupe San Jose and the Provincial Sheriff of
Laguna, defendants.” This last case was decided by the Court of First
Instance of Laguna in favor of the plaintiffs on March 2, 1933, and the
defendants Guadalupe San Jose and the provincial sheriff of Laguna, who
did not agree to the decision rendered by the court, appealed to the
Supreme Court, resulting in the reversal of the appealed judgment in
all its parts on June 16, 1934 (G. R. No. 39510 [60 Phil., 1018] and
Exhibit B).

It was proven in the above-stated case that the owners of the lands
in question, Raymundo Ysaac and Antonina Alay, had mortgaged them, as
already stated, to Dr. M. D. Calupitan, to secure the payment of their
debt of P1,000. Tomas Matienzo and Maria Carcalin then attempted to
prove that on December 26, 1929, said spouses had sold the lands to
them with for a period of ten (10) years. It appears,
however, that the deed of the alleged transfer made in their favor was
registered in the registry of deeds only after the lapse of one year,
eight months and seventeen days from the registration therein of the
mortgage deed executed by said spouses in favor of Dr. Calupitan
(Exhibit B).

Long before this court reversed the judgment rendered in said civil
case No. 5952, that is, on June 15, 1933, Tomas Matienzo sold to the
petitioner Aurelio Palileo, for P410, “all his right, participation and
interest” in the lands in question, having executed the deed Exhibit A
to that effect. One of the last paragraphs of said deed which, by the
way, states that the contract referred to therein is that of sale with pacto de retro,
reads as follows: “I hereby declare that hereafter and until the
repurchase said Mr. Aurelio Palileo, his heirs and successors in
interest are the absolute owners of said lands and possessors thereof,
free from all liens and incumbrances for which I am liable for their
warranty and eviction in accordance with law, and he may register this
document pursuant to Act No. 3344,” thus making it understood that
Tomas Matienzo had the possession of said lands and therefore was
already the absolute owner thereof. However, it appears from the
pleading filed in civil case No. 5480 (Exhibit 2) by the petitioner
Aurelio Palileo, as attorney for the spouses Raymundo Ysaac and
Antonina Alay, that the latter were the owners of said lands and the
ones who, all the time prior to the execution of the judgment rendered
in said case, had been in possession thereof. There is no doubt about
this fact because it was said spouses Raymundo Ysaac and Antonina Alay
themselves who delivered the parcels of land indicated by letters (6)
and (c) to Guadalupe San Jose (answer under oath, paragraph X), when it
was not possible for them to exercise their right of redemption. They
confined themselves only to opposing the delivery to Guadalupe San Jose
of the parcel of land indicated by letter {a). The reason then alleged
by them through attorney and petitioner Aurelio Palileo was that said
property constituted their homestead and that it was exempt from
execution inasmuch as the value thereof did not exceed P300. They
likewise suggested that if said Guadalupe San Jose were to agree to pay
them the value thereof, ^300, there would be no question (Exhibit 2).
On October 2, 1935, the respondent judge, acting by virtue of the
reasons alleged by said petitioner Aurelic Palileo, issued an order of
the following tenor:

“Upon consideration of the. defendants’ motion of
September 18, 1935, the provincial sheriff of Laguna is ordered to
refrain from executing the final deed of the defendants’ house and lot
stated in said motion, which the sheriff sold for P500, unless the
purchaser at public auction pay the sum of P300 to the defendants.”

Pursuant to said order, Adriana Francisco de Guilatco, one of the
respondents as assignee of the rights of the other respondent Guadalupe
San Jose, who was the highest bidder at the auction sale, paid the sum
of P300 to the spouses Raymundo Ysaac and Antonina Alay, turning over
said sum to the latter’s attorney, the herein petitioner Aurelio
Palileo. It was only after said payment had been made that the sheriff
executed the deed of absolute sale of the land indicated by letter (a) in the petition, in favor of Adriana Francisco de Guilatco.

When the spouses Raymundo Ysaac and Antonina Alay refused to turn
over the parcel of land in question to the respondents Guadalupe San
Jose and Adriana Francisco de Guilatco, notwithstanding the fact that
they had received the selling price thereof, the respondent judge, at
the instance of the interested parties, issued the order now questioned
by the petitioners, who claim that it is the result of an abuse of
discretion and is, furthermore, unconstitutional because it deprives
them of a right due them, without due process of law.

Taking into consideration the foregoing facts, there seems to be no
doubt that there is no other conclusion than that the petitioners’
petition is absolutely without merit: first, because, granting that the
sale with allegedly made by the spouses Raymundo Ysaac and
Antonina Alay in favor of the petitioner Tomas Matienzo, from whom the
other petitioner Aurelio Palileo claims to have derived his right, is
true, it is inferior to the mortgage lien constituted on the lands in
question in favor of Dr. M. D. Calupitan, predecessor in interest of
Guadalupe San Jose, on the ground that the registration of the sale in
question in the registry of deeds took place, as already stated, one
year, eight months and seventeen days after that of the mortgage deed
executed in favor of Dr. Calupitan, which was made about the middle of
the month of February, 1930 (Exhibit B); and second, because said
transfer cannot be considered a sale with pacto de retro,
inasmuch as it is clearly inferred from the above-stated facts and
transactions, in the performance of which the petitioner Aurelio
Palileo took part, that the lands which were the subject matter of the
contract never left the hands of the owners thereof, the alleged
vendors under pacto de retro. The petitioners are estopped
from falsifying this fact because petitioner Aurelio Palileo himself,
by his own declaration and acts, intentionally and deliberately led,
not only the parties to said civil case No. 5480 but also the judge who
tried it, to believe that the parcels of land, which were then the
subject matter of said action and are precisely the ones referred to in
this petition, belonged and continued to belong to the spouses Raymundo
Ysaac and Antonina Alay and that they were in their possession. If the
contract entered into between said spouses and the petitioner Tomas
Matienzo, to secure with the three parcels of land in question the
payment to the latter of their obligation, if there ever was any, were
to be considered a mere mortgage—which would be the most that could be
done—the petitioners’ petition would have less merit because, under the
provisions of article 1927, rule 2, of the Civil Code, the mortgage
credit of Dr. Calupitan, or of his assignee Guadalupe San Jose, is
superior to and enjoys preference over that of said petitioner Tomas
Matienzo.

Furthermore, inasmuch as the lands in question were sold at public
auction by virtue of the writ of execution of the judgment issued in
the aforesaid civil case No. 5480, and as the spouses Raymundo Ysaac
and Antonina Alay and their alleged successors in interest, the herein
petitioners, failed to exercise their right of redemption within the
period fixed for said purpose (section 466 of Act No. 190), it
necessarily follows that they have already lost every right on the
ground that, admitting the preference of the credit of Dr. Calupitan or
of his assignee, the respondent Guadalupe San Jose, said petitioners
should have satisfied the credit in question first, if they had the
intention of enforcing their mortgage lien at all, but they did not do
so. The most that they would perhaps be entitled to is to claim the
excess of the proceeds of the sale at public auction, if any, after the
amount of the judgment has been satisfied. The situation, however, is
such that this cannot happen in the present case because the judgment
credit of the respondent Guadalupe San Jose was P1,000, exclusive of
interest and costs, and the amount of her bid at the auction sale was
Pi,450. From this latter amount, the sum of P300 was taken to be turned
over to the spouses Raymundo Ysaac and Antonina Alay, through the
petitioner Aurelio Palileo, in payment of a portion of parcel (a)
which they refused to deliver unless they were paid the value thereof,
under the pretext that it was exempt from execution. It may, therefore,
be said that all that she had recovered by virtue of the judgment in
her favor was the sum of P1,150 which was hardly sufficient to cover
her entire credit.

The remedy prayed for is denied, with costs to the petitioners. So ordered.

Avancena, C. J., Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.