Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS
SBC filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the defendant, Pauli, for
H
the sum of P258,964.15. The Supreme Court upheld the bank's decision, but the bank failed to
execute the writs of execution due to the unavailability of Pauli's leviable assets. Pauli had
purchased a sugar cane plantation, Hacienda Riverside, from the Philippine National Bank in
1957, but did not register the deed of Sale to avoid discovery by his creditors. In 1963, he
fraudulently sold the hacienda to his daughter, Sally Garganera, and her husband Mateo
Garganera. Warner Barnes & Co., another creditor of Pauli, instituted another civil case with the
CF of Negros Occidental for the sale to the Garganera spouses, which was declared fictitious
for fraud of creditors. The defendants appealed the decision to the CA, but entered into a
compromise agreement with Warner Barnes & Co., Ltd., paying its judgment credit of
P28,962.11, and filed a joint motion to dismiss, which the CA approved.
etitioner HSBC filed a complaint for the revival of the 1962 judgment in its favor, ordering the
P
plaintiff the sum of P219,276.20 with legal interest until fully paid and the costs. The bank then
filed a new complaint against Pauli and the Garganeras, docketed as Civil Case No. 465 in the
CFl of Negros Occidental, praying for the annulment of the Conditional Sale and Deed of Sale of
Hacienda Riverside to the Garganeras and for Garganera's certificate of Title No. 1-34425.
Issue/s
hether or not the action for annulment of the sale of Lot 693 to the Garganeras had been
W
prescribed.
Ruling:
In the present case, the Court held that when a transaction involves registered land, the
four-year period within winch to bring an action for annulment of the deed, shall be computed
from the registration of the conveyance (March 5, 1963) on the familiar theory that the
registration of the document is constructive notice of the conveyance to the whole world, and
not in 1969 wherein the plaintiff had obtained actual knowledge of the fraudulent sale of Pauli's
land to the Garganeras.
.R. No. 75287 June 30, 1987
G
HOUSE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING TENANTS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
petitioner-plaintiff,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, CENTERTOWN MARKETING CORP., MANILA
TOWERS DEVELOPMENT CORP., AND THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE
SYSTEM, respondents-defendants
FACTS
Issue:
Held:
FACTS
elestina Perez, the owner of a parcel of land, and Santiago Babao, her niece, entered into a
C
verbal agreement in 1924 to improve the land by clearing forest trees and planting crops. Perez
was bound to convey half of the land and its improvements upon her death. However, Perez
sold 127 hectares of the land before her death, denying Babao possession and administration.
When Santiago Babao died in 1948, Bienvenido Babao was appointed judicial administrator of
his estate. He filed a case for the conveyance of half of the land, annulment of fictitious sales,
and judgment in favor of Babao for P47,000, the useful and necessary expenses he incurred in
improving the land. Perez's counsel filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the verbal agreement
was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. However, the trial court denied the motion, as it
appeared that Babao fully complied with his part of the oral contract.
ISSUES
/N the verbal agreement falls within the prohibition of the Statute of Frauds, and
W
is therefore unenforceable.
HELD:
ES,The plaintiff has been awarded a judgment against the defendants for fraudulent and
Y
fictitious sales of Lupang Parang. The court has ordered Florencio Perez, the administrator of
the deceased Celestina Perez's testament estate, to pay the plaintiff P3,786.66 annually until
the land is delivered to her. The defendants have been ordered to divest their title over half of
Lupang Parang, both in quantity and quality, and to designate a disinterested surveyor for the
necessary survey and division. The court has also ordered the defendants to surrender
possession of the half adjudicated and vested in the plaintiff, and to pay the costs.
" When, in an oral contract which, by its terms, is not to be performed within one year from
the execution thereof, one of the contracting: parties has complied within the year with the
bligations imposed on him by said contract, the other party cannot avoid the fulfillment of
o
those incumbent on him under the same contract by invoking the statute of frauds because
the latter aims to prevent and not to protect fraud.
FACTS
n August 31, 1964, plaintiff Domingo D. Rubias, a lawyer, filed a suit to recover the ownership
O
and possession of certain portions of lot located in Barrio General Luna, Barotac Viejo, Iloilo
which he bought from his father-in-law, Francisco Militante in 1956 against its present occupant
defendant, Isaias Batiller, who illegally entered said portions of the lot. Plaintiff prayed also for
damages andattorney’s fees. In his answer with counterclaim defendant claims the complaint of
the plaintiff does not state a cause of action, the truth of the matter being that he and his
predecessors-in-interest have always been in actual, open and continuous possession since
time immemorial under claim of ownership of the portions of the lot in question and for the
alleged malicious institution of the complaint he claims he has suffered moral damages in the
amount of P 2,000.00, as well as the sum of P500.00 for attorney’s fees.
efendant claims that plaintiff could not have acquired any interest in the property in dispute as
D
the contract he (plaintiff) had with Francisco Militante was inexistent and void. Plaintiff strongly
opposed defendant’s motion to dismiss claiming that defendant cannot invoke Articles 1409 and
1491 of the Civil Code as Article 1422 of the same Code provides that ‘The defense of illegality
of contracts is not available to third persons whose interests are not directly affected
ISSUE/S
hether or not the contract of sale between appellant and his father-in-law, the late Francisco
W
Militante over the property was void because it was made when plaintiff was counsel of his
father-in-law in a land registration case involving the property in dispute.
RULING
he plaintiff's claim of ownership to the land was based on a sale made in 1956 by his
T
father-in-law, Francisco Militante, in his favor. Militante's application for registration had already
been dismissed by the Iloilo land registration court and was pending appeal in the Court of
Appeals. Therefore, there was no right or title to the land that could be transferred or sold by
Militante's purported sale in 1956 in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's complaint against the
defendant, to be declared absolute owner of the land and restored to possession with damages,
was without any factual or legal basis. Article 1491 of the Civil Code prohibits certain persons
from acquiring property in their trust or control, including guardians, agents, administrators,
public officers, judicial officers, and those disqualified by law.