You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cc99?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[RUPERTO SALVA v. ADRIANA SALVADOR](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/cc99?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:cc99}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 5893, Jan 03, 1911 ]

RUPERTO SALVA v. ADRIANA SALVADOR +

DECISION

18 Phil. 193

[ G. R. No. 5893, January 03, 1911 ]

RUPERTO SALVA, APPLICANT AND APPELLANT, VS. ADRIANA SALVADOR, OPPONENT AND APPELLEE.

D E C I S I O N

TORRES, J.:

On April 22, 1907,  Ruperto Salva  filed an  application with  the Court of Land Registration  for the registry,  in accordance with the law, of  certain property belonging  to him,  consisting of a  parcel of land situated in the barrio of San Roque of the municipality of San Pablo, La Laguna, bounded on the north by  the  land of Vicente  Damaraos, on the east by that of Pedro Alcantara and Rufina Belen, by a new street built in December, 1906, and by a lot of the municipality of San Pablo, on the south by the main street of the pueblo, and  on the west by the lands of  Poteneiano Malvar and Arcadio Brion.  The said  application set forth that the land had  an  area of  9,079 square meters, in accordance with the details contained in  the plan accompanying the application; that it was appraised, for the purpose of the payment of  the land tax, at $95 United States currency, and had been acquired  by the  applicant as a part of his share,  pursuant to a mutual agreement with Adriana Salvador with whom he  had been living connubially for a long time; that the latter, before the  partition was made and  while  she was still  living  with the applicant,  applied for a possessory information title and inscribed in her name all of the land in the property registry of La Laguna, as the present applicant was then in the military service in the capacity of corporal of the Guardia Civil of the Spanish Government; that  afterwards  Adriana Salvador sold the part that belonged  to her to Arcadio Brion, attaching the possessory  title to the  deed which she  executed  before the municipal president of San  Pablo; that  the applicant at present occupies the said land, and that, to his best knowledge and belief, there is'no encumbrance  on  the same and no other person  who  might claim to have  any right or share therein.

The case came up for hearing and as no one appeared to oppose the application of Ruperto Salva,  notwithstanding the summons issued and the notices  published after the presentation of both oral and documentary evidence by the applicant, the judge of  the  Court of  Land Registration, in view thereof, rendered judgment on December 3, 1908, whereby he found  that the adjudication  and registration of the  said property in the name of the  applicant, in accordance with the plan and technical description presented and after  the entry  of a  general default, was admissible, and ordered the issuance of the proper decree in his favor.

Three months after the said decree had been  issued in behalf of Ruperto Salva, Francisco Faustino, by a petition of March 3, 1900, presented in the  name of his wife, Adriana Salvador, requested  that, in consideration of the reasons alleged therein, all the proceedings had in the said case at the instance ofRu per to Salva be declared null and void, and that a title of ownership to the land in question be decreed in his favor.   The said petition further  prayed that, in any case, a  new trial be held, without prejudice to an investigation by the proper authority of the fraud and deceit practiced  by  Salva, in order that he might  be punished  therefor, and recited that the opponent's wife, Adriana Salvajior, was the legitimate owner of the land in question, by possession for more than fifty  years, according to the composition title recorded in the property registry on November 14, 1895, which title was attached  to  his petition; and, further, that, notwithstanding the fact that Salvador resided in the pueblo of Quingua, Bulacan, she exercised, through her agent, Ruperto Salva, her right  of possession  over  the said land; that on December 4, 1907, Adriana Salvador sold one-half of  her land to Arcadio Brion, as recorded on the margin of one of the sheets  of her title of ownership; that, a few days before, it had come to her knowledge that her said agent, abusing her confidence, had  instituted case No. 4534 in the Court of Land  Registration, wherein  he alleged that the remaining half of the land in question was his and applied for the issuance  of a title, willfully concealing the  fact that the said land belonged to Adriana Salvador,  wherefore the  court did not summon the latter; and the petition set forth that thereby the fraud  of which  Ruperto Salva  availed  himself, was proved, and that therefore the proceedings  should  be annulled,  with  respect  to  which neither Adriana  Salvador nor her husband, Francisco Faustino, had any knowledge, they having learned of the fraud through a statement made to  the  latter by the superintendent of schools of La Laguna, to the effect that the Government desired to purchase Adriana Salvador's land for the purpose of erecting a school building thereon.

A rehearing of the case was had  on  a motion for a new-trial  filed by Adriana Salvador's husband.  On September 27, 1909, the judge annulled the decree of registration of December 3, 1908, and ordered a continuance of the hearing of the case in order to decide the question of the ownership of the property alleged to pertain to Adriana Salvador.

Upon the further hearing  of the case, and  after the presentation of oral evidence by the parties, the documents exhibited were attached to the record, the court pronounced judgment on November  20,  1909,  granting  the petition presented by Adriana Salvador on the  3d of  the  previous month of March, and ordered the cancellation  of the decree No. 5053, issued in favor of Ruperto  Salva  and  referred to in the ruling made on  March  9, 1909,  and  that  the register of deeds of La Laguna and  the clerk  of the Court of Land Registration issue another decree of registration of the said  property  in the name of Adriana Salvador as soon as this  judgment should have become final. Ruperto Salva, upon notice of the aforementioned  order, filed a written motion for a rehearing,  on  the ground  that the same was contrary to law and was  unsupported by the weight  of the evidence.   This motion was denied on December  14, 1909, wherefore the applicant Salva took exception to  all of the rulings  and orders of the court in these proceedings of review and filed  the proper bill  of exceptions for certification and transmission to the clerk of this court. Section 38 of Act No. 496, among other provisions,  contains the following:
"Every decree  of registration shall bind the land,  and quiet  title thereto,  subject  only to  the exceptions stated in the following section.   *  *  *  Such decree shall not be opened by reason of the absence, infancy, or other disability of any person affected thereby, nor by any proceeding in any court for  reversing judgments  or decrees;  subject, however, to the right of any person deprived of land or of any estate  or interest therein by  decree  of registration obtained by fraud to file in  the Court of Land Registration a petition  for review within one year after entry of the decree, provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest."
Did Ruperto Salva act fraudulently in applying for the registration of one-half of the land, the possessory title of which had previously been recorded in the property registry in the name of Adriana Salvador, without having expressly requested that the  latter be summoned, when the partition of the said  land,  made  between  the applicant and  the presumed owner of the property, appears only in a private document not duly  legalized?

The applicant Salva knew perfectly well that the opponent Salvador  had applied for the said  possessory  title with favorable result; that  such title  set  forth that she had acquired all the land referred to, by purchase from Laureana Gabino, and that she had been in possession  of the property since its acquisition, inasmuch as  he himself had  signed in the name of the opponent, because she did not know how to write, a petition of the date of November  8, 1895,  addressed to the register of property and requesting a certified copy of the title which was entered in the  registry, which copy he himself exhibited under letter C, as the assent of the real owner of Jthe entire piece of land was indispensable to obtain  a favorable issue  of his  claim filed before  the Court of Land Registration.

Neither could the applicant, Ruperto Salva, have been unaware of the fact that when Adriana Salvador sold one-half of the said land  to  Arcadio Brion, on  December 4, 1901, she did so as the owner of the entire property,  as stated in the  instrument drawn  up before  the  municipal president of San Pablo, Exhibit No. 3, a copy of which,  or its original, must have been seen and read by him when in the possession of the vendee, who furnished  him  the aforesaid certified copy, letter  C; therefore he must have understood that  the private document, designated under letter B, which accompanied his  application and contained the agreement of partition of the said land, claimed by him to have  been entered  into  by himself and  Adriana Salvador, could not be authentic nor efficacious except upon approval by the latter, the sole owner of the realty according to the documents aforementioned; and, withal,  there being no record  of  such  approval, Ruperto Salva,  in  applying for the registration of one-half  of the land alleged by him to be  his, did not request that the said owner of the land be summoned, leaving it to be inferred  that  the latter had transferred to him  the ownership  of  the  said one-half  of the property, when,  in  reality,  there was no authentic record to that effect, and such transfer was afterwards found not to have been made.

Ruperto Salva  endeavored to prove in these proceedings the certainty and authenticity of the instrument of partition, letter B, by means of the testimony of three witnesses whose sworn statements, in  the opinion of the judge, could not destroy the conclusion reached from the evidence  adduced at  the trial, which conclusion can not  be  rejected without good reason.

Adriana Salvador denied that she had  made with the applicant the  said agreement  of  partition of the land in litigation  and  that they were  co-owners of  the property. She maintained that the whole of the  said land belonged to her and that she had acquired it with her own funds. These positive statements of the opponent  appear to be corroborated by the text of the  document No. 3, relative to the sale of ore-half of the land m question to  Arcadio Brion, for in it  the vendor states that  she owned all the land, the area and bounds of which are given, and that she sold only one-half  of the same to the said vendee,  Arcadio Brion. This document, dated December 4, 1901, was not impugned nor refuted as false.

Were it true that, on the first of the month just above mentioned, three days before Adriana Salvador had executed the instrument of partition, letter B, Jose Brion, who signed it at the  request,  according to  himself and  the  applicant, of the said Salvador, on reading and signing the instrument of sale, No. 3, of one-half of the land at the request of or for  Matea Lopez,  the wife of the  vendee, Arcadio Brion, his brother, would have called the Iatter's attention to the fact that  the  vendor, who on the 1st  of December agreed with Ruperto  Salva to divide the and  with him by deeding him one-half of it, stated on the fourth of the same month, three days afterwards, that she was still the owner of the whole  of  the  land  and that she only sold the half of it. Jose Brion, while  interested in behalf of his brother,  the purchaser, made no objection and said nothing,  undoubtedly because it was not true that there was an  agreement of partition,  nor  that  such an  instrument was really executed by Adriana Salvador.

The latter, according to the marriage certificate, Exhibit No.  2, was  married to Francisco Faustino on August 26, 1901, and therefore it  is to be1 believed that  she did not continue to live  with her former paramour, Ruperto Salva, on the 1st of December of the same year.

It is true that in this document it is stated that she  was single, as  likewise in the  other instrument of sale, Exhibit No. 3, dated the fourth of the same month and year; but the opponent Salvador denied, as aforestated, the certainty and  authenticity of the  first instrument of  partition  and admitted the sale recorded  in the second one which, however, was not drawn up in her presence; and notwithstanding that the said opponent did  not explain how that  sale could have been effected without the authorization of her husband, as she was already a married woman  on the date when she executed it, yet this court has no need to concern itself with the questions to which such a circumstance might give rise, in spite of the ratification or confirmation of the sale on the part of the vendor.

The sole  object of this decision is to decide whether the applicant acted fraudulently in asking for the registration of one-half of  the land in question, which half, according to the possessory title, exclusively belonged and belongs to the opponent.

Had the applicant acted in good faith, he would frankly, and of his own accord, have stated the nature and conditions of the instrument of partition,  Exhibit B, and expressly have requested that the opponent, whose name appears in the said title as the legitimate and sole owner of all the land, be summoned, in order that she might have knowledge of the registration applied for by him, and might confirm the truth of the  agreement of partition set  forth in the document mentioned; but be showed no  interest in having any  of these things  done; and endeavored to obtain, and did obtain, a decree  of registration without the opponent's knowledge and  behind her back, which decree,  had the review that was requested and filed within the term allowed by law not been granted, would have deprived  the opponent of her property.

For the foregoing reasons,  and because the judgment appealed from  is found to be in accordance with the. law, as regards the first part thereof, it is proper, in our opinion, to affirm the same, as we hereby do, thereby annulling and canceling the decree of December  3,  1908, which directs the registration, applied for by Ruperto Salva, of one-half of the said land; and the second part of the aforementioned judgment is reversed  or  set  aside.   It is ordered  that another decree of registration of the property concerned be issued in favor of the opponent Adriapa Salvador, for which she may make  a separate  application.  No special finding is made as to the costs of both instances.  So ordered.

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

tags