G.R. No. L-6471 - FEBRUARY 1912 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-6471February 29, 1912 Eugenio Sobrevilla vs. Felix C. Montinola, et al. G.R. No. L-7029February 27, 1912 China Navigation Co., Ltd. vs. Cipriano Vidal, et al. G.R. No. L-6479February 27, 1912 Kuenzle & Streiff vs. Silverio F. Jiongco, et al. G.R. No. L-6705February 27, 1912 United States vs. Felipe Salvador(alias Apong Ipi) G.R. No. L-6413February 27, 1912 Muerteguy & Aboitiz vs. Isidro V. Delgado G.R. No. L-5932February 27, 1912 Dean C. Worcester vs. Martin Ocampo, et al. G.R. No. L-6749February 26, 1912 Zoilo Ibañez de Aldecoa, et al vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., et al. G.R. No. L-5953February 24, 1912 Antonio M. Pabalan vs. Feliciano Velez G.R. No. L-7154February 21, 1912 Eleanor Erica Strong, et al vs. Francisco Gutierrez Repide G.R. No. L-6759February 21, 1912 Deogracias Serrano vs. Andres Serrano Aragon G.R. No. L-6741February 21, 1912 United States vs. Nemesio Bonoan, et al. G.R. No. L-6322February 21, 1912 Dolores Avelino vs. Victorian dela Cruz G.R. No. L-7132February 20, 1912 Maria Esguerra vs. Mariano Tecson, et al. G.R. No. L-6909February 20, 1912 United States vs. Hachaw G.R. No. L-7286February 17, 1912 United States vs. Juan Recio G.R. No. L-6789February 16, 1912 United States vs. Calixto Laranja G.R. No. L-6761February 16, 1912 Lim Tuico vs. Cu-Unjieng G.R. No. L-6583February 16, 1912 Ramon Fabie, et al vs. City of Manila G.R. No. L-6897February 15, 1912 United States vs. Policarpio Tayongtong G.R. No. L-6858February 15, 1912 United States vs. Dionisio Lomongsod, et al. G.R. No. L-6285February 15, 1912 Pedro Barut vs. Faustino Cabacungan, et al. G.R. No. L-6614February 14, 1912 United States vs. Onofre Udruña, et al. G.R. No. L-6535February 13, 1912 Alejandro Montelibano, et al vs. Director of Lands G.R. No. L-4824February 13, 1912 in re: Bernardo Rafanan Lao Sayco G.R. No. L-7265February 12, 1912 United States vs. Cosme Juares, et al. G.R. No. L-6818February 10, 1912 Angelo Andres, et al vs. Valeriana Pimentel G.R. No. L-6707February 8, 1912 United States vs. Go-Leng G.R. No. L-6434February 6, 1912 Lucas Reyes, et al vs. Jeremiah J. Harty G.R. No. L-6242February 3, 1912 Arcadia Reynes vs. La Compania General de Tobacos de Filipinas, et al. G.R. No. L-6870February 2, 1912 United States vs. Sylverio Mamonong G.R. No. L-6714February 2, 1912 United States vs. Lorenzo Mendoza G.R. No. L-6539February 2, 1912 United States vs. Victorino de los Santos G.R. No. L-7516February 1, 1912 Romana Quilatan, et al vs. Emiliano Caruncho The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Eugenio Sobrevilla vs. Felix C. Montinola, et al. China Navigation Co., Ltd. vs. Cipriano Vidal, et al. Kuenzle & Streiff vs. Silverio F. Jiongco, et al. United States vs. Felipe Salvador(alias Apong Ipi) Muerteguy & Aboitiz vs. Isidro V. Delgado Dean C. Worcester vs. Martin Ocampo, et al. Zoilo Ibañez de Aldecoa, et al vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., et al. Antonio M. Pabalan vs. Feliciano Velez Eleanor Erica Strong, et al vs. Francisco Gutierrez Repide Deogracias Serrano vs. Andres Serrano Aragon United States vs. Nemesio Bonoan, et al. Dolores Avelino vs. Victorian dela Cruz Maria Esguerra vs. Mariano Tecson, et al. United States vs. Hachaw United States vs. Juan Recio United States vs. Calixto Laranja Lim Tuico vs. Cu-Unjieng Ramon Fabie, et al vs. City of Manila United States vs. Policarpio Tayongtong United States vs. Dionisio Lomongsod, et al. Pedro Barut vs. Faustino Cabacungan, et al. United States vs. Onofre Udruña, et al. Alejandro Montelibano, et al vs. Director of Lands in re: Bernardo Rafanan Lao Sayco United States vs. Cosme Juares, et al. Angelo Andres, et al vs. Valeriana Pimentel United States vs. Go-Leng Lucas Reyes, et al vs. Jeremiah J. Harty Arcadia Reynes vs. La Compania General de Tobacos de Filipinas, et al. United States vs. Sylverio Mamonong United States vs. Lorenzo Mendoza United States vs. Victorino de los Santos Romana Quilatan, et al vs. Emiliano Caruncho The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-6471 February 29, 1912
EUGENIO SOBREVILLA, administrator of the intestate estate of Benito Decena,plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FELIX MONTINOLA Y CELIS, administrator of the estate of Magdaleno Jimenea,
ANTONIO DECENA, and the SHERIFF OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS and his Deputy,defendants-appellants.
Antonio Jayme Ledesma for appellants.
Ramon Frias for appellee.
JOHNSON,J.:
On the 10th day of July, 1909, Benito Decena, now deceased, commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Occidental Negros against the said defendants, for the purpose of prohibiting the sale, under an attachment, of the parcels of land, particularly described in the third paragraph of the complaint, and for the sum of P100, for the unlawful interference with the possession of said property. After hearing the evidence, the lower court prohibited the sale as prayed for by the plaintiff and directed the sheriff to return the property to the plaintiff, with costs against the defendants.
The facts are gathered from the record seem to be as follows:
First. That on the 15th day of May, 1908, a justice of the peace of the municipality of Saravia, rendered a decision against the said Antonio Decena and in favor of the estate of Magdaleno Jimenea. Later, on the 17th day of July, 1908, the Court of First Instance of the Province of Occidental Negros declared said decision null and void.
Second. On the 18th of August, 1908, Felix Montinola, as administrator of the said estate of Jimenea, commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros against Antonio Decena, based upon the same grounds as the action theretofore commenced in the court of the said justice of the peace. After hearing the evidence, the court, on the 26th of January, 1909, rendered a decision in favor of the estate of the said Jimenea and against Antonio Decena, for the sum of P600.
Third. On the 23d day of April, 1909, an execution was issued upon said judgment in favor of the estate of Jimenea and against the property of Antonio Decena. Under said execution the property in question was attached.
Fourth. On the 1st day of July, 1908, Antonio Decena sold and delivered the property in question, under a public document, to Cristeto de Leon. The deed of sale between Antonio Decena and Cristeto de Leon was presented in evidence during the trial of the cause in the court below. The said deed was registered in the registry of property on the 4th day of August, 1908.
Fifth. On the 13th day of August, 1908, Cristeto de Leon, by virtue of public document, sold and transferred the property in question to the said Benito Decena. This deed of transfer was also duty registered in the registry of property on the 16th day of December, 1908.
The defendants, during the trial of the cause in the lower court, alleged that the said deeds of transfer of the property in question were fraudulent and that the said Antonio Decena was still the owner of the said lands, but no proof whatever was adduced to support this contention. The defendants and appellants rely upon the provisions of article 1297 of the Civil Code, for the purpose of sustaining their contention that the said conveyances were fraudulent.
Article 1297 provides that:
All contracts, by virtue of which a debtor conveys property under a gratuitous title are presumed to be made in fraud of creditors.
Conveyances under onerous titles, made by persons against whom a condemnatory sentence, in any instance, has been previously rendered, or a writ of seizure of property has been issued, shall also be presumed fraudulent.
It will be noted that no proof was adduced in the court below to show that the said transfers were made undergratuitous title. It will also be noted that at the time of the transfer of the property in question by Antonio Decena to Cristeto de Leon (July 1, 1908), no valid condemnatory sentence had been rendered against Antonio Decena, and so far as the record shows no sentence had been rendered against him until nearly six months after the transfer of the said property had been made by de Leon to the plaintiff herein.
There may have been fraud in the different transfers of the property in question, but the record fails to show it. If the defendants believed that the transfers were fraudulent, that fact should have been established by competent evidence.
After a careful consideration of the record brought to this court, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed with costs. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Trent, JJ.,concur.
Mapa and Moreland, JJ.,concur as to the dispositive part.