G.R. No. L-4257 - MARCH 1908 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-4257March 31, 1908 Simon Mosesgeld Santiago vs. Rufino Quimson, et al. G.R. No. L-4078March 31, 1908 Concepcion Mendiola vs. Nicolasa Pacalda G.R. No. L-3469March 31, 1908 Josefa Aguirre vs. Manuel Villaba G.R. No. L-4377March 30, 1908 United States vs. Vicente Garcia Gavieres G.R. No. L-4281March 30, 1908 Jose Garrido vs. Agustin Asencio G.R. No. L-4222March 30, 1908 United States vs. Basilio Cernias G.R. No. L-4198March 30, 1908 Juan Mercado vs. Jose Abangan G.R. No. L-3007March 30, 1908 Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Municipality of Badoc, et al. G.R. No. L-4017March 28, 1908 United States vs. Pedro Mariño G.R. No. L-4469March 27, 1908 Felipe G. Calderon vs. Jose Mcmicking G.R. No. L-4372March 27, 1908 Enrique M. Barretto vs. City of Manila G.R. No. L-4203March 27, 1908 Manuel Crame Sy Panco vs. Ricardo Gonzaga, et al. G.R. No. L-4200March 27, 1908 United States vs. Segundo Samonte G.R. No. L-4037March 27, 1908 Lim Jao Lu vs. H. B. McCoy G.R. No. L-3762March 27, 1908 Government of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Amechazurra, et al. G.R. No. L-3612March 27, 1908 Domingo Lim vs. Jose Lim G.R. No. L-3539March 27, 1908 Manuel Ramirez vs. Insular Government G.R. No. L-4420March 26, 1908 United States vs. Narciso Caguimbal, et al. G.R. No. L-4376March 26, 1908 United States vs. Lim Sip, et al. G.R. No. L-4322March 26, 1908 Inocente Martinez vs. G. E. Campbell, et al. G.R. No. L-4265March 26, 1908 United States vs. Luis Pascual G.R. No. L-4207March 26, 1908 Juan Valle vs. Sixto Galera, et al. G.R. No. L-4160March 26, 1908 Angel Gustilo, et al. vs. Federico Matti, et al. G.R. No. L-3812March 26, 1908 Philippine Sugar Estates Development Company,Limited vs. Barry Baldwin G.R. No. L-3339March 26, 1908 Rosa Llorente vs. Ceferino Rodriguez, et al. G.R. No. L-4175March 26, 1908 A. W. Bean vs. B. W. Cadwallader Company G.R. No. L-4100March 26, 1908 Maria Singayan vs. Calixta Mabborang, et al. G.R. No. L-4121March 26, 1908 United States vs. Pedro Garcia G.R. No. L-4418March 25, 1908 United States vs. Andres V. Estrada G.R. No. L-4354March 25, 1908 United States vs. Candido Poblete G.R. No. L-4091March 25, 1908 United States vs. Bernabe Bacho G.R. No. L-4063March 25, 1908 United States vs. Juan Mariño, et al. G.R. No. L-4012March 25, 1908 Maximo P. Cortes vs. City of Manila G.R. No. L-3357March 25, 1908 United States vs. A. W. Prautch G.R. No. L-2674March 25, 1908 Joaquin C. Lover vs. Insular Government, et al. G.R. No. L-4352March 24, 1908 United States vs. Ricardo Bayot G.R. No. L-4274March 23, 1908 Jose Alano, et al. vs. Jose Babasa G.R. No. L-3780March 23, 1908 United States vs. Pedro Sellano G.R. No. L-4215March 23, 1908 Lucio I. Limpangco vs. Juana Mercado, et al. G.R. No. L-4132March 23, 1908 In re: Maria Siason y Madrid de Ledesma G.R. No. L-3550March 23, 1908 Go Chioco vs. Inchausti & Co. G.R. No. L-4324March 21, 1908 United States vs. Casimiro Ollales, et al. G.R. No. L-4300March 21, 1908 Maria Barretto vs. Leona Reyes G.R. No. L-4167March 21, 1908 Rafaela Salmo vs. Luisa Icaza, et al. G.R. No. L-4109March 21, 1908 United States vs. Juliana Torres, et al. G.R. No. L-3975March 21, 1908 United States vs. Angel Marin G.R. No. L-3968March 21, 1908 United States vs. Marcos Lopez, et al. G.R. No. L-4436March 20, 1908 United States vs. Francisco Castro di Tian Lay G.R. No. L-4399March 20, 1908 Benito Legarda vs. S.L.P. R. Rocha, et al. G.R. No. L-4241March 20, 1908 Agustin G. Gavieres vs. Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Luisa Peña, et al. G.R. No. L-4196March 20, 1908 Benwit Ullmann vs. Felix Ullmann and Co. G.R. No. L-4158March 20, 1908 United States vs. Mateo Cariño, et al. G.R. No. L-4155March 20, 1908 Ruperto Belzunce vs. Valentina Fernandez, et al. G.R. No. L-4104March 20, 1908 Jao Igco vs. Morgan Shuster G.R. No. L-3904March 20, 1908 Ko Poco vs. H. B. McCoy G.R. No. L-4209March 19, 1908 International Banking Corporation vs. Pilar Corrales, et al. G.R. No. L-4147March 19, 1908 Agripino de la Rama vs. Concepcion Sanchez, et al. G.R. No. L-4318March 18, 1908 United States vs. Generoso Academia G.R. No. L-4233March 18, 1908 Exequiel Delgado vs. Manuel Riesgo, et al. G.R. No. L-4213March 18, 1908 United States vs. Potenciano Reyes G.R. No. L-4051March 18, 1908 Catalina Bernardo vs. Vicente Genato G.R. No. L-4007March 18, 1908 Warner Barnes & Co. vs. E. Diaz & Co. G.R. No. L-3699March 18, 1908 United States vs. Benito Cusi, et al. G.R. No. L-3606March 18, 1908 Ignacio Acasio vs. Felicisma Albano G.R. No. L-4127March 17, 1908 United States vs. Charles J. Kosel G.R. No. L-4077March 17, 1908 Macaria Matias vs. Agustin Alvarez G.R. No. L-4205March 16, 1908 Julian Cabañas vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. L-4169March 14, 1908 Wilhelm Bauermann vs. Maxima Casas, et al. G.R. No. L-3951March 14, 1908 United States vs. Feliciano Garcia, et al. G.R. No. L-4146March 13, 1908 United States vs. Petra de Guzman G.R. No. L-3848March 13, 1908 United States vs. Andres Gimeno G.R. No. L-469March 13, 1908 T. H. Pardo de Tavera, et al. vs. Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. G.R. No. L-4087March 12, 1908 United States vs. Amador Barrios G.R. No. L-4085March 12, 1908 Carls Palanca Tanguinlay vs. Franciso G. Quiros, et al. G.R. No. L-4341March 12, 1908 United States vs. Marcos Rojo G.R. No. L-3907March 12, 1908 Roman Abaya vs. Donata Zalamero G.R. No. L-3855March 12, 1908 Eufemia Loreto vs. Julio Herrera G.R. No. L-3523March 12, 1908 Caridad Muguruza vs. International Banking Corporation G.R. No. L-2129March 12, 1908 C. Heinzen & Co. vs. James J. Peterson, et al. G.R. No. L-3279March 11, 1908 City of Manila vs. Insular Government, et al. G.R. No. L-4347March 9, 1908 Jose Rogers vs. Smith, Bell, & Co. G.R. No. L-4174March 9, 1908 United States vs. Quintin Tabal, et al. G.R. No. L-4131March 9, 1908 Serapio Averia vs. Lucio Reboldera G.R. No. L-3880March 9, 1908 Teopista Castro, et al. vs. Antonio Martinez Gallegos, et al. G.R. No. L-4438March 7, 1908 United States vs. Jacinto Sunga, et al. G.R. No. L-4026March 7, 1908 United States vs. Pascual Dulay G.R. No. L-3811March 7, 1908 United States vs. Fracisco Blanco G.R. No. L-4447March 6, 1908 Murphy, Morris & Co. vs. Collection of Customs of the Philippine Islands G.R. No. L-3717March 5, 1908 Felix Velasco vs. Martin Masa G.R. No. L-4237March 5, 1908 Serafin Uy Piaco vs. Jose Mcmicking, et al. G.R. No. L-3457March 2, 1908 Yu Bunuan, et al. vs. Orestes Marcaida G.R. No. L-4065March 2, 1908 Bruno Villanueva vs. Maxima Roque, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Simon Mosesgeld Santiago vs. Rufino Quimson, et al. Concepcion Mendiola vs. Nicolasa Pacalda Josefa Aguirre vs. Manuel Villaba United States vs. Vicente Garcia Gavieres Jose Garrido vs. Agustin Asencio United States vs. Basilio Cernias Juan Mercado vs. Jose Abangan Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Municipality of Badoc, et al. United States vs. Pedro Mariño Felipe G. Calderon vs. Jose Mcmicking Enrique M. Barretto vs. City of Manila Manuel Crame Sy Panco vs. Ricardo Gonzaga, et al. United States vs. Segundo Samonte Lim Jao Lu vs. H. B. McCoy Government of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Amechazurra, et al. Domingo Lim vs. Jose Lim Manuel Ramirez vs. Insular Government United States vs. Narciso Caguimbal, et al. United States vs. Lim Sip, et al. Inocente Martinez vs. G. E. Campbell, et al. United States vs. Luis Pascual Juan Valle vs. Sixto Galera, et al. Angel Gustilo, et al. vs. Federico Matti, et al. Philippine Sugar Estates Development Company,Limited vs. Barry Baldwin Rosa Llorente vs. Ceferino Rodriguez, et al. A. W. Bean vs. B. W. Cadwallader Company Maria Singayan vs. Calixta Mabborang, et al. United States vs. Pedro Garcia United States vs. Andres V. Estrada United States vs. Candido Poblete United States vs. Bernabe Bacho United States vs. Juan Mariño, et al. Maximo P. Cortes vs. City of Manila United States vs. A. W. Prautch Joaquin C. Lover vs. Insular Government, et al. United States vs. Ricardo Bayot Jose Alano, et al. vs. Jose Babasa United States vs. Pedro Sellano Lucio I. Limpangco vs. Juana Mercado, et al. In re: Maria Siason y Madrid de Ledesma Go Chioco vs. Inchausti & Co. United States vs. Casimiro Ollales, et al. Maria Barretto vs. Leona Reyes Rafaela Salmo vs. Luisa Icaza, et al. United States vs. Juliana Torres, et al. United States vs. Angel Marin United States vs. Marcos Lopez, et al. United States vs. Francisco Castro di Tian Lay Benito Legarda vs. S.L.P. R. Rocha, et al. Agustin G. Gavieres vs. Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Luisa Peña, et al. Benwit Ullmann vs. Felix Ullmann and Co. United States vs. Mateo Cariño, et al. Ruperto Belzunce vs. Valentina Fernandez, et al. Jao Igco vs. Morgan Shuster Ko Poco vs. H. B. McCoy International Banking Corporation vs. Pilar Corrales, et al. Agripino de la Rama vs. Concepcion Sanchez, et al. United States vs. Generoso Academia Exequiel Delgado vs. Manuel Riesgo, et al. United States vs. Potenciano Reyes Catalina Bernardo vs. Vicente Genato Warner Barnes & Co. vs. E. Diaz & Co. United States vs. Benito Cusi, et al. Ignacio Acasio vs. Felicisma Albano United States vs. Charles J. Kosel Macaria Matias vs. Agustin Alvarez Julian Cabañas vs. Director of Lands Wilhelm Bauermann vs. Maxima Casas, et al. United States vs. Feliciano Garcia, et al. United States vs. Petra de Guzman United States vs. Andres Gimeno T. H. Pardo de Tavera, et al. vs. Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. United States vs. Amador Barrios Carls Palanca Tanguinlay vs. Franciso G. Quiros, et al. United States vs. Marcos Rojo Roman Abaya vs. Donata Zalamero Eufemia Loreto vs. Julio Herrera Caridad Muguruza vs. International Banking Corporation C. Heinzen & Co. vs. James J. Peterson, et al. City of Manila vs. Insular Government, et al. Jose Rogers vs. Smith, Bell, & Co. United States vs. Quintin Tabal, et al. Serapio Averia vs. Lucio Reboldera Teopista Castro, et al. vs. Antonio Martinez Gallegos, et al. United States vs. Jacinto Sunga, et al. United States vs. Pascual Dulay United States vs. Fracisco Blanco Murphy, Morris & Co. vs. Collection of Customs of the Philippine Islands Felix Velasco vs. Martin Masa Serafin Uy Piaco vs. Jose Mcmicking, et al. Yu Bunuan, et al. vs. Orestes Marcaida Bruno Villanueva vs. Maxima Roque, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-4257 March 31, 1908
SIMON MOSESGELD SANTIAGO,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RUFINO QUIMSON ET AL.,defendants-appellants.
Eugenio de Lara for appellants.
Gabriel and Borbon for appellee.
MAPA,J.:
In the complaint, the restitution of possession of seventeen parcels of land is prayed for, and the payment of the sum of P810 as rental with interest thereon, together with a further sum of P4,770 as damages for the illegal retention of the said lands.
In view of the evidence adduced at the trial, the court entered the following judgment:
The court finds that the following facts have been fully proven. On the 2nd of January, 1896, Rosa Gongon sold to Simon Mosesgeld, the plaintiff herein, the seventeen parcels of land, with the right of repurchase, now sued for. On the following day, that is on the 3rd of January, 1896, the plaintiff leased the said seventeen parcels to the former owner thereof, Rosa Gongon, for the period of two years at a rental of 750 pesos for each agricultural year. The lease expired on the 4th of January, 1898.
It is an accepted fact that the said Rosa Gongon died on the 14th day of May, 1897, and that after her death, the defendants, her heirs, entered into possession of the property in question, and up to the institution of the complaint they continued in possession. It was also acknowledged by the defendants that the plaintiff requested them to deliver up the said property and to pay the rental due for the last year of the lease. The court considers that as matter of fact the defendants have not paid the rental for the last year, that is, the year 1897-98.
The defendants have attempted to prove that they possess the lands in question as heirs of their father. It clearly appears that said lands originally belonged to Rosa Gongon, the mother of the defendants; that at the time of her death she had no more right to said lands than that of a simple lessee, and that, therefore, when she died she could not have transmitted to her children any right of ownership to said lands.
Let judgment be entered against the defendants, sentencing them to make restitution of the seventeen parcels of land described in the complaint of the plaintiff herein, and to pay him the rental corresponding to the agricultural year 1898, namely, P750, together with legal interest thereon from the time when the complaint was interposed, with costs against the defendants.
This judgment was duly excepted to by the defendants, and appeal was made to this court by means of a bill of exceptions.
The defendants maintain that the land in controversy belonged to the conjugal partnership property (sociedad legal de gananciales) of their parents, Francisco Quimson and Rosa Gongon, and that upon the death of the former, the latter sold said lands to the plaintiff without having previously liquidated the said partnership, for which reason the sale is null and void under the law, because the lands sold were not the exclusive property of the seller. And they point out as an error, committed by the judge below, the fact that "in his decision, so reads their brief, "he ignored the certificate of theacto conciliatoriaoffered as evidence by the defendants, a solemn document and the only one to prove that the real estate in question was acquired during the conjugal partnership, and that, therefore, it sets aside the subsequent sale executed in favor of the plaintiff by the late Rosa Gongon."
The saidacto de conciliacionwas celebrated between Rosa Gongon on the part, and her daughters Gertrudis and Domingo Quimson on the other, in connection with the payment of the legal portion due from the father to the said daughters. It is true that the record of the said action reads that "all the property had and acquired" (during the marriage of Rosa Gongon and her late husband Francisco Quimson) "was common to the conjugal partnership, and thereforegananciales;" but the difficulty is that there is no evidence whatever that the lands in controversy form part of the said property. The contrary would rather appear from the statement of the property acquired during marriage which is attached to said record, inasmuch as all the lands indicated therein are under the following heading, "Land held under a mortgage title," with the circumstance that in each item the names of those who were apparently the owners of the mortgaged land are stated. Not a single parcel of land appears in said statement as owned by the spouses Quimson and Gongon. At all events, and be the property what it may, it has not been shown that the lands in controversy are the same lands or at least that they form part of the lands that appears in the said statement without any specification or description whatever, beyond the names of the places where they are situated. Neither has it been shown in any manner that the lands sued for were acquired during their marriage, which is the least that the defendants should have proved in support of their claim.
On the other hand, it is stated in clause two of the deed of sale executed by Rosa Gongon in favor of the plaintiff, that the seventeen parcels of land, "the subject of the sale, were acquired by her by private purchase from the original owners thereof, and that she has been in possession of the same many years "as owner," as proven in the possessory proceedings that she instituted in the court of the justice of the peace on account of the lack of recorded title, ... which are recorded in the registry of property . . . ."
In view of the foregoing, the judge below not only did not err, but acted rightly in not considering the land as property acquired during marriage.
In the defendants' answer to the complaint it is said:
That the defendant Gertrudis Quimson has no interest whatever in the possession and enjoyment of the parcels of land claimed in the complaint because, while the said Rosa Gongon was still living, the said defendant received in cash the whole of her share of the inheritance, and because, as a matter of fact, she has not worked nor possessed, under any sense, any of the parcels above referred to; therefore, she ought to be excluded from the complaint.
The plaintiff has not proven that what is stated, in this portion of the complaint is not true, and this being the case, the said Gertrudis can not in justice be ordered to make restitution of the possession of the land in controversy, inasmuch as she does not possess the same nor has she ever been in possession thereof.
By virtue of the foregoing, the complaint is dismissed as to the said Gertrudis Quimson, the judgment appealed from being thus reversed in so far as it applies to her, and affirmed as to the other defendants, with the costs of this instance against them. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, and Willard, JJ.,concur.