SEVERO GOROSPE AND GUILLERMO GOROSPE, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. ANTONIO ILAYAT, ALEJANDRO ILAYAT, AND BASILIDES ILAYAT, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES

An action filed in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte for recovery
of possession wherein plaintiffs alleged that while they were owners pro
indiviso of the land described in the complaint by reason of their having
purchased it from the defendants on November 27, 1910, for the sum of P195, the
possession and material delivery of which land had been given to them by the
said vendors themselves about the middle of the month of January, 1911, the
first two defendants unlawfully appropriated to themselves one-half of the said
property, thereby causing the plaintiffs damages in the amount of P20, and, by
reason of expenses incurred by the present litigation further damages to the
amount of P150. The plaintiffs therefore prayed that the defendants be ordered
to make immediate delivery to them of the one-half of the said land and to pay
the amount of the aforementioned damages and the costs of the suit.

The first two defendants, as well as the third, in their respective answers
denied the plaintiffs’ allegation of ownership and possession of the land in
question and their having acquired it by purchase, as set forth in the
complaint, and alleged on the contrary that while the first two defendants were
still owners of the said land they sold it, on January 28, 1910, by a public
instrument, to the other defendant, Basilides Ilayat, who since that time had
had quiet, peaceable and uninterrupted possession; and that, as the land was
part of a larger tract which the father of the first two defendants owned
jointly with one Felipe Bartido, this latter had kept the possessory information
or title deed of the land in dispute and had afterwards connived with the
plaintiffs to prejudice the defendants by making it appear that he had sold it
to the plaintiffs. The defendants therefore prayed that they be absolved from
the complaint, with the costs against the plaintiffs, and that in addition, the
latter be sentenced to indemnify defendants respectively in the sum of P200 for
the damages occasioned them by the filing of the complaint.

After the introduction of evidence by both parties, the lower court absolved
the defendants from the complaint, with the costs against the plaintiffs. The
grounds of the judgment were that the contract of sale of the said land, on
which the plaintiffs had based their action, was ineffective, null and void,
because it had not been made in writing, and that, even though such sale in
favor of the plaintiffs were actually made, that effected by the two defendants
to the other defendant, Basilides Ilayat, should prevail, for the reason that it
was made previously and was set forth in a written instrument. From this
judgment the plaintiffs excepted and at the same time moved for a new trial.
Their motion was denied, an exception was taken to the ruling and, through a
bill of exceptions, the case was brought before this court on appeal.

The question raised before us by the appellants in their assignments of error
turns upon the weight given the evidence submitted by them, which the lower
court held to be insufficient and incompetent to prove the complaint.

The complaint was based on the plaintiffs’ allegation that they were the
owners of the land in question because they had purchased it from the defendants
Alejandro and Antonio Ilayat and Felipe Bartido, and to prove the purchase they
presented three witnesses, among them Bartido himself and one of the plaintiffs
who, over the objection and exception of the defendants, testified affirmatively
on this point. The plaintiffs also presented a copy of the summary passes spry
information relative to the said land; that had been instituted at the instance
of and approved in favor of Felipe Bartido and Santiago Ilayat, the latter being
the father of two of the defendants. The plaintiffs and Latina Bartido, another
witness, testified that, instead of the sale being recorded in another written
instrument as the plaintiffs themselves desired, this instrument was delivered
to the plaintiffs upon the execution of the sale.

Since the enactment of Act No. 190, the Code of Civil Procedure, a contract
of sale of realty cannot be proven by means of witnesses, but must necessarily
be evidenced by a written instrument, duly subscribed by the party charged, or
by his agent, or by secondary evidence of the contents of such document. No
other evidence, therefore, can be received except the documentary evidence
referred to, in so far as regards such contracts, and these are valueless as
evidence unless they are drawn up in writing in the manner aforesaid. (Sec. 335,
Code of Civil Procedure.)

The facts upon which the complaint is based cannot be considered as proven,
because the plaintiffs only presented the testimony of witnesses to prove that
the land sought to be recovered by them in this suit was sold to them by the
defendants, Antonio and Alejandro Ilayat, and by Felipe Bartido. To prove the
sale, the documentary evidence before mentioned cannot be substituted by the
copy of the possessory information which, according to the plaintiffs, was
delivered to them by the defendants. Furthermore, the plaintiffs did not prove
that the possession of the said land was delivered to them by those two
defendants and Felipe Bartido, as alleged in the complaint in corroboration of
the alleged sale.

The defendants presented at the trial the document found on pages 10, 11, 12,
and 13 of that part of the record entitled “Documents of the Parties.” This
document, marked “Exhibit A” of the defendants, appears to have been executed on
January 28, 1910, in Batac, Province of Ilocos Norte, and witnesses that two of
the defendants, Antonio and Alejandro Ilayat, sold the land in question to the
other defendant, Basilides Ilayat, for the sum of F600, Philippine currency,
paid by this latter to the two former. The document is signed by the three
parties first above-named and by the witnesses Agustin Andres and Eulalio Bareng
and was certified before Santiago Espiritu, notary public of Batac, on December
9,1910. The defendants tried to prove by means of this instrument that the owner
of the disputed land was one of them, Basilides Ilayat, and that the sale made
to him appeared in writing.

In view of this evidence the court held as aforesaid that even granting that
the land was actually sold to the plaintiffs as alleged in the complaint, the
sale to Basilides Ilayat must prevail, because it was made previously and was
recorded in a written instrument. This is, undoubtedly, but another reason for
the dismissal of the complaint. However, a close examination of the document
mentioned discloses that in referring therein to the personal certificate of
registration of the supposed purchaser, Basilides Ilayat, exhibited in the
course of the proceeding which, according to the date of the document, was had
on January 28, 1910, the statement is made that the said certificate, No.
1409413, was issued by the municipal treasurer of the municipality of Batac on
February 21, 1910. This clearly shows that the document in question could not
have been executed on January 28, 1910, but on some date subsequent to that of
February 21 of the same year, for the simple Reason that on January 28, 1910,
Basilides Ilayat could nor have had in his possession the certificate which, as
stated in the said document, he exhibited in that proceeding and on that
particular date, as this certificate was issued twenty-three days afterwards, to
wit, on the 21st of the following month of February. Nor can any error be
attributed to the reference made in the document of the date of the issuance of
the certificate of registration, for, as may also be seen on page 13 of the
record of documentary evidence, in the ratification of the deed of sale which
appears to have been made by the three defendants before the notary of Batac, on
December 9, 1910, that is, eleven months afterwards,—a circumstance in itself
which leads us to suspect that it was not executed on the date shown on its
face,—in the mention of the personal certificates of registration exhibited by
the affiants, it is stated that Basilides Ilayat’s cedula is numbered 1409413
and was issued on February 21, 1910, that is, it bears the same date and number
as that mentioned in the deed of sale.

By reason of the foregoing, and because the evidence presented by the
plaintiffs is insufficient, the defendants are absolved from the complaint, the
judgment appealed from being thus affirmed, without special finding as to
costs.

Arellano, C J., Torres, Moreland, and Trent, JJ.,
concur.