Mauricio Carlos For Appellants. Felipe Buencamino, Jr. For Appellee

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 43
 
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
ManilaEN BANC
G.R. No. L-46240 November 3, 1939MARGARITA UINTOS !"# ANGEL A. ANSAL$O,
 
plaintis-appellants,
 
vs.
%EC&,
 
defendant-appellee.
Mauricio Carlos for appellants.Felipe Buencamino, Jr. for appellee.
 
IMPERIAL,
 
 J.:
The plaintiff brought this action to compel the defendant to return her certain furniture which she lent him for his use. She appealed from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila which ordered that the defendant return to her the three has heaters and the four electric lampsfound in the possession of the Sheriff of said city, that she call for the other furniture from the said sheriff of Manila at her own expense, and that thefees which the Sheriff may charge for the deposit of the furniture be paid
 pro rata
 by both parties, without pronouncement as to the costs.The defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and as such occupied the latters house on M. !. del "ilar street, #o. $$%&. 'n (anuary $), $*+, upon theno-ation of the contract of lease between the plaintiff and the defendant, the former gratuitously granted to the latter the use of the furniture describedin the third paragraph of the stipulation of facts, subject to the condition that the defendant would return them to the plaintiff upon the lattersdemand. The plaintiff sold the property to Maria ope/ and 0osario ope/ and on September $), $*+, these three notified the defendant of thecon-eyance, gi-ing him sixty days to -acate the premises under one of the clauses of the contract of lease. There after the plaintiff re1uired thedefendant to return all the furniture transferred to him for them in the house where they were found. 'n #o-ember &, $*+, the defendant,through another person, wrote to the plaintiff reiterating that she may call for the furniture in the ground floor of the house. 'n the %th of the samemonth, the defendant wrote another letter to the plaintiff informing her that he could not gi-e up the three gas heaters and the four electric lamps because he would use them until the $&th of the same month when the lease in due to expire. The plaintiff refused to get the furniture in -iew of thefact that the defendant had declined to ma2e deli-ery of all of them. 'n #o-ember $&th, before -acating the house, the defendant depositedwith the Sheriff all the furniture belonging to the plaintiff and they are now on deposit in the warehouse situated at #o. $&3$, 0i/al 4-enue, in thecustody of the said sheriff.In their se-en assigned errors the plaintiffs contend that the trial court incorrectly applied the law5 in holding that they -iolated the contract by notcalling for all the furniture on #o-ember &, $*+, when the defendant placed them at their disposal6 in not ordering the defendant to pay them the-alue of the furniture in case they are not deli-ered6 in holding that they should get all the furniture from the Sheriff at their expenses6 in orderingthem to pay7half of the expenses claimed by the Sheriff for the deposit of the furniture6 in ruling that both parties should pay their respecti-e legalexpenses or the costs6 and in denying pay their respecti-e legal expenses or the costs6 and in denying the motions for reconsideration and new trial.To dispose of the case, it is only necessary to decide whether the defendant complied with his obligation to return the furniture upon the plaintiffsdemand6 whether the latter is bound to bear the deposit fees thereof, and whether she is entitled to the costs of litigation.
lawphi1.net 
The contract entered into between the parties is one of
commadatum
, because under it the plaintiff gratuitously granted the use of the furniture to thedefendant, reser-ing for herself the ownership thereof6 by this contract the defendant bound himself to return the furniture to the plaintiff, upon thelatters demand 8clause % of the contract, 9xhibit 46 articles $%):, paragraph $, and $%)$ of the Ci-il Code;. The obligation -oluntarily assumed bythe defendant to return the furniture upon the plaintiffs demand, means that he should return all of them to the plaintiff at the latters residence or house. The defendant did not comply with this obligation when he merely placed them at the disposal of the plaintiff, retaining for his benefit thethree gas heaters and the four eletric lamps. The pro-isions of article $$* of the Ci-il Code cited by counsel for the parties are not s1uarelyapplicable. The trial court, therefore, erred when it came to the legal conclusion that the plaintiff failed to comply with her obligation to get thefurniture when they were offered to her.4s the defendant had -oluntarily underta2en to return all the furniture to the plaintiff, upon the latters demand, the Court could not legally compelher to bear the expenses occasioned by the deposit of the furniture at the defendants behest. The latter, as bailee, was not entitled to place thefurniture on deposit6 nor was the plaintiff under a duty to accept the offer to return the furniture, because the defendant wanted to retain the three gasheaters and the four electric lamps.4s to the -alue of the furniture, we do not belie-e that the plaintiff is entitled to the payment thereof by the defendant in case of his inability to returnsome of the furniture because under paragraph  of the stipulation of facts, the defendant has neither agreed to nor admitted the correctness of thesaid -alue. Should the defendant fail to deli-er some of the furniture, the -alue thereof should be latter determined by the trial Court through e-idencewhich the parties may desire to present.The costs in both instances should be borne by the defendant because the plaintiff is the pre-ailing party 8section )<% of the Code of Ci-il "rocedure;.The defendant was the one who breached the contract of
commodatum
, and without any reason he refused to return and deli-er all the furniture uponthe plaintiffs demand. In these circumstances, it is just and e1uitable that he pay the legal expenses and other judicial costs which the plaintiff wouldnot ha-e otherwise defrayed.
5
 
The appealed judgment is modified and the defendant is ordered to return and deli-er to the plaintiff, in the residence to return and deli-er to the plaintiff, in the residence or house of the latter, all the furniture described in paragraph + of the stipulation of facts 9xhibit 4. The expenses whichmay be occasioned by the deli-ery to and deposit of the furniture with the Sheriff shall be for the account of the defendant. the defendant shall paythe costs in both instances. So ordered.0epublic of the "hilippines
SUPREME COURT
ManilaFI0ST =I>ISI'#
G.R. No. 80294-95 September 21, 1988CATHO!C "!CAR APOSTO!C O# THE MOUNTA!N PRO"!NCE,
 petitioner, -s.
COURT O# APPEAS, HE!RS O# EGM!$!O OCTA"!ANO AN$ %UAN "A$E&,
respondents.>alde/, 9reso, "olido ? 4ssociates for petitioner.Claustro, Claustro, Claustro aw 'ffice collaborating counsel for petitioner.(aime @. de eon for the !eirs of 9gmidio 'cta-iano.Cotabato aw 'ffice for the !eirs of (uan >alde/.
 GANCA'CO, %.(
The principal issue in this case is whether or not a decision of the Court of 4ppeals promulgated a long time ago can properly be considered
res judicata
 by respondent Court of 4ppeals in the present two cases between petitioner and two pri-ate respondents."etitioner 1uestions as allegedly erroneous the =ecision dated 4ugust +$, $*<% of the #inth =i-ision of 0espondent Court of 4ppeals
1
 in C47@.0. #o. :&$)< ACi-il Case #o. +:% 8)$*;B and C47@.0. #o. :&$)* ACi-il Case #o. +&& 8)3*;B, both for 0eco-ery of "ossession, which affirmed the=ecision of the !onorable #icodemo T. Ferrer, (udge of the 0egional Trial Court of aguio and enguet in Ci-il Case #o. +:% 8)$*; and Ci-ilCase #o. +&& 8)3*;, with the dispositi-e portion as follows5D!909F'09, (udgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant, Catholic >icar 4postolic of the Mountain "ro-ince to returnand surrender ot 3 of "lan "su7$*)+&% to the plaintiffs. !eirs of (uan >alde/, and ot + of the same "lan to the other set of  plaintiffs, the !eirs of 9gmidio 'cta-iano 8eonardo >alde/, et al.;. For lac2 or insufficiency of e-idence, the plaintiffs claim or damages is hereby denied. Said defendant is ordered to pay costs. 8p. +, 0ollo;0espondent Court of 4ppeals, in affirming the trial courts decision, sustained the trial courts conclusions that the =ecision of the Court of 4ppeals,dated May ),$*%% in C47@.0. #o. +<<+:70, in the two cases affirmed by the Supreme Court, touched on the ownership of lots 3 and + in 1uestion6that the two lots were possessed by the predecessors7in7interest of pri-ate respondents under claim of ownership in good faith from $*: to $*&$6that petitioner had been in possession of the same lots as bailee in commodatum up to $*&$, when petitioner repudiated the trust and when it appliedfor registration in $*36 that petitioner had just been in possession as owner for ele-en years, hence there is no possibility of ac1uisiti-e prescriptionwhich re1uires $: years possession with just title and +: years of possession without6 that the principle of
res judicata
 on these findings by the Courtof 4ppeals will bar a reopening of these 1uestions of facts6 and that those facts may no longer be altered."etitioners motion for reconsideation of the respondent appellate courts =ecision in the two aforementioned cases 8C4 @.0. #o. C>7:&)$< and:&)$*; was denied.The facts and bac2ground of these cases as narrated by the trail court are as follows E ... The documents and records presented re-eal that the whole contro-ersy started when the defendantCatholic >icar 4postolic of the Mountain "ro-ince 8>IC40 for bre-ity; filed with the Court of First Instanceof aguio enguet on September &, $*3 an application for registration of title o-er ots $, 3, +, and ) in"su7$*)+&%, situated at "oblacion Central, a Trinidad, enguet, doc2eted as 0C #7*$, said ots being thesites of the Catholic Church building, con-ents, high school building, school gymnasium, school dormitories,social hall, stonewalls, etc. 'n March 33, $*+ the !eirs of (uan >alde/ and the !eirs of 9gmidio 'cta-ianofiled their 4nswer'pposition on ots #os. 3 and +, respecti-ely, asserting ownership and title thereto. 4fter trial on the merits, the land registration court promulgated its =ecision, dated #o-ember $%, $*&,confirming the registrable title of >IC40 to ots $, 3, +, and ).The !eirs of (uan >alde/ 8plaintiffs in the herein Ci-il Case #o. +&&; and the !eirs of 9gmidio 'cta-iano8plaintiffs in the herein Ci-il Case #o. +:%; appealed the decision of the land registration court to the thenCourt of 4ppeals, doc2eted as C47@.0. #o. +<<+:70. The Court of 4ppeals rendered its decision, dated May*, $*%%, re-ersing the decision of the land registration court and dismissing the >IC40s application as toots 3 and +, the lots claimed by the two sets of oppositors in the land registration case 8and two sets of  plaintiffs in the two cases now at bar;, the first lot being presently occupied by the con-ent and the second bythe womens dormitory and the sisters con-ent.
5
 
'n May *, $*%%, the !eirs of 'cta-iano filed a motion for reconsideration praying the Court of 4ppeals toorder the registration of ot + in the names of the !eirs of 9gmidio 'cta-iano, and on May $%, $*%%, the!eirs of (uan >alde/ and "acita >alde/ filed their motion for reconsideration praying that both ots 3 and + be ordered registered in the names of the !eirs of (uan >alde/ and "acita >alde/. 'n 4ugust $3,$*%%, theCourt of 4ppeals denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the !eirs of (uan >alde/ on the ground thatthere was Gno sufficient merit to justify reconsideration one way or the other ...,G and li2ewise denied that of the !eirs of 9gmidio 'cta-iano.Thereupon, the >IC40 filed with the Supreme Court a petition for re-iew on certiorari of the decision of theCourt of 4ppeals dismissing his 8its; application for registration of ots 3 and +, doc2eted as @.0. #o. 7)<+3, entitled Catholic >icar 4postolic of the Mountain "ro-ince -s. Court of 4ppeals and !eirs of 9gmidio 'cta-iano.From the denial by the Court of 4ppeals of their motion for reconsideration the !eirs of (uan >alde/ and"acita >alde/, on September <, $*%%, filed with the Supreme Court a petition for re-iew, doc2eted as @.0. #o. 7)<%3, entitled,
 Heirs of Juan Valdez and Pacita Valdez vs. Court of Appeals
, >icar, !eirs of 9gmidio'cta-iano and 4nnable '. >alde/.'n (anuary $+, $*%<, the Supreme Court denied in a minute resolution both petitions 8of >IC40 on the onehand and the !eirs of (uan >alde/ and "acita >alde/ on the other; for lac2 of merit. Hpon the finality of bothSupreme Court resolutions in @.0. #o. 7)<+3 and @.0. #o. 7 )<%3, the !eirs of 'cta-iano filed with thethen Court of First Instance of aguio, ranch II, a Motion For 9xecution of (udgment praying that the !eirsof 'cta-iano be placed in possession of ot +. The Court, presided o-er by !on. Sal-ador (. >alde/, on=ecember %, $*%<, denied the motion on the ground that the Court of 4ppeals decision in C47@.0. #o.+<<%: did not grant the !eirs of 'cta-iano any affirmati-e relief.'n February %, $*%*, the !eirs of 'cta-iano filed with the Court of 4ppeals a petitioner for certiorari andmandamus, doc2eted as C47@.0. #o. :<<*:70, entitled
 Heirs of Egmidio ctaviano vs. Hon. !alvador J.Valdez" Jr. and Vicar 
. In its decision dated May $, $*%*, the Court of 4ppeals dismissed the petition.It was at that stage that the instant cases were filed. The !eirs of 9gmidio 'cta-iano filed Ci-il Case #o.+:% 8)$*; on (uly 3), $*%*, for reco-ery of possession of ot +6 and the !eirs of (uan >alde/ filed Ci-ilCase #o. +&& 8)3*; on September 3), $*%*, li2ewise for reco-ery of possession of ot 3 8=ecision, pp. $**73:$, 'rig. 0ec.;.In Ci-il Case #o. +:% 8)$*; trial was held. The plaintiffs !eirs of 9gmidio 'cta-iano presented one 8$; witness, Fructuoso>alde/, who testified on the alleged ownership of the land in 1uestion 8ot +; by their predecessor7in7interest, 9gmidio 'cta-iano89xh. C ;6 his written demand 89xh. E7) ; to defendant >icar for the return of the land to them6 and the reasonable rentals for the use of the land at "$:,:::.:: per month. 'n the other hand, defendant >icar presented the 0egister of =eeds for the "ro-inceof enguet, 4tty. #icanor Sison, who testified that the land in 1uestion is not co-ered by any title in the name of 9gmidio'cta-iano or any of the plaintiffs 89xh. <;. The defendant dispensed with the testimony of Mons.Dilliam rasseur when the plaintiffs admitted that the witness if called to the witness stand, would testify that defendant >icar has been in possession of ot+, for se-enty7fi-e 8%&; years continuously and peacefully and has constructed permanent structures thereon.In Ci-il Case #o. +&&, the parties admitting that the material facts are not in dispute, submitted the case on the sole issue of whether or not the decisions of the Court of 4ppeals and the Supreme Court touching on the ownership of ot 3, which in effectdeclared the plaintiffs the owners of the land constitute
res judicata.
In these two cases , the plaintiffs ar1ue that the defendant >icar is barred from setting up the defense of ownership andor longand continuous possession of the two lots in 1uestion since this is barred by prior judgment of the Court of 4ppeals in C47@.0. #o. :+<<+:70 under the principle of
res judicata
. "laintiffs contend that the 1uestion of possession and ownership ha-e already been determined by the Court of 4ppeals 89xh. C, =ecision, C47@.0. #o. :+<<+:70; and affirmed by the Supreme Court 89xh.$, Minute 0esolution of the Supreme Court;. 'n his part, defendant >icar maintains that the principle of
res judicata
 would not pre-ent them from litigating the issues of long possession and ownership because the dispositi-e portion of the prior judgment inC47@.0. #o. :+<<+:70 merely dismissed their application for registration and titling of lots 3 and +. =efendant >icar contendsthat only the dispositi-e portion of the decision, and not its body, is the controlling pronouncement of the Court of 4ppeals.
2
The alleged errors committed by respondent Court of 4ppeals according to petitioner are as follows5$. 900'0 I# 4""I#@ 4D 'F T!9 C4S9 4#=
 #E! J$%&CA'A
6
5
 
3. 900'0 I# FI#=I#@ T!4T T!9 T0I4 C'H0T 0H9= T!4T 'TS 3 4#= + D909 4CJHI09=  "H0C!4S9 HT DIT!'HT='CHM9#T40 9>I=9#C9 "09S9#T9=6+. 900'0 I# FI#=I#@ T!4T "9TITI'#90S C4IM IT "H0C!4S9= 'TS 3 4#= + F0'M >4=9K 4#= 'CT4>I4#' D4S 4#IM"I9= 4=MISSI'# T!4T T!9 F'0M90 'D#90S D909 >4=9K 4#= 'CT4>I4#'6). 900'0 I# FI#=I#@ T!4T IT D4S "09=9C9SS'0S 'F "0I>4T9 09S"'#=9#TS D!' D909 I# "'SS9SSI'# 'F 'TS 3 4#= + 4T94ST F0'M $*:, 4#= #'T "9TITI'#906&. 900'0 I# FI#=I#@ T!4T >4=9K 4#= 'CT4>I4#' !4= F099 "4T9#T 4""IC4TI'#S 4#= T!9 "09=9C9SS'0S 'F "0I>4T909S"'#=9#TS 4094= !4= F099 "4T9#T 4""IC4TI'#S SI#C9 $*:6. 900'0 I# FI#=I#@ T!4T "9TITI'#90 =9C409= 'TS 3 4#= + '# I# $*&$ 4#= (HST TIT9 IS 4 "0IM9 #9C9SSIT H#=90 40TIC9 $$+) I# 094TI'# T' 40T. $$3* 'F T!9 CI>I C'=9 F'0 '0=I#40 4CJHISITI>9 "09SC0I"TI'# 'F $: 940S6%. 900'0 I# FI#=I#@ T!4T T!9 =9CISI'# 'F T!9 C'H0T 'F 4""94S I# C4 @.0. #'. :+<<+: D4S 4FFI0M9=  T!9 SH"09M9C'H0T6<. 900'0 I# FI#=I#@ T!4T T!9 =9CISI'# I# C4 @.0. #'. :+<<+: T'HC!9= '# 'D#90S!I" 'F 'TS 3 4#= + 4#= T!4T"0I>4T9 09S"'#=9#TS 4#= T!9I0 "09=9C9SS'0S D909 I# "'SS9SSI'# 'F 'TS 3 4#= + H#=90 4 C4IM 'F 'D#90S!I"I# @''= F4IT! F0'M $*: T' $*&$6*. 900'0 I# FI#=I#@ T!4T "9TITI'#90 !4= 99# I# "'SS9SSI'# 'F 'TS 3 4#= + M909 4S 4I99 '0 0'D90; I#C'MM'=4THM, 4 @04THIT'HS '4# F'0 HS96$:. 900'0 I# FI#=I#@ T!4T "9TITI'#90 IS 4 "'SS9SS'0 4#= HI=90 I# @''= F4IT! DIT!'HT 0I@!TS 'F 09T9#TI'#4#= 09IMH0S9M9#T 4#= IS 4009=  T!9 FI#4IT 4#= C'#CHSI>9#9SS 'F T!9 =9CISI'# I# C4 @.0. #'. :+<<+:.
)
The petition is bereft of merit."etitioner 1uestions the ruling of respondent Court of 4ppeals in C47@.0. #os. :&$)< and :&$)*, when it clearly held that it was in agreement withthe findings of the trial court that the =ecision of the Court of 4ppeals dated May ),$*%% in C47@.0. #o. +<<+:70, on the 1uestion of ownership of ots 3 and +, declared that the said Court of 4ppeals =ecision C47@.0. #o. +<<+:70; did not positi-ely declare pri-ate respondents as owners of theland, neither was it declared that they were not owners of the land, but it held that the predecessors of pri-ate respondents were possessors of ots 3and +, with claim of ownership in good faith from $*: to $*&$. "etitioner was in possession as borrower in commodatum up to $*&$, when itrepudiated the trust by declaring the properties in its name for taxation purposes. Dhen petitioner applied for registration of ots 3 and + in $*3, ithad been in possession in concept of owner only for ele-en years. 'rdinary ac1uisiti-e prescription re1uires possession for ten years, but always with just title. 9xtraordinary ac1uisiti-e prescription re1uires +: years.
4
'n the abo-e findings of facts supported by e-idence and e-aluated by the Court of 4ppeals in C47@.0. #o. +<<+:70, affirmed by this Court, De seeno error in respondent appellate courts ruling that said findings are
res judicata
 between the parties. They can no longer be altered by presentation of e-idence because those issues were resol-ed with finality a long time ago. To ignore the principle of
res judicata
 would be to open the door to endlesslitigations by continuous determination of issues without end.4n examination of the Court of 4ppeals =ecision dated May ), $*%%, First =i-ision
5
 in C47@.0. #o. +<<+:70, shows that it re-ersed the trial courts=ecision
*
 finding petitioner to be entitled to register the lands in 1uestion under its ownership, on its e-aluation of e-idence and conclusion of facts.The Court of 4ppeals found that petitioner did not meet the re1uirement of +: years possession for ac1uisiti-e prescription o-er ots 3 and +. #either did it satisfy the re1uirement of $: years possession for ordinary ac1uisiti-e prescription because of the absence of just title. The appellate court didnot belie-e the findings of the trial court that ot 3 was ac1uired from (uan >alde/ by purchase and ot + was ac1uired also by purchase from9gmidio 'cta-iano by petitioner >icar because there was absolutely no documentary e-idence to support the same and the alleged purchases werene-er mentioned in the application for registration.y the -ery admission of petitioner >icar, ots 3 and + were owned by >alde/ and 'cta-iano. oth >alde/ and 'cta-iano had Free "atent4pplication for those lots since $*:. The predecessors of pri-ate respondents, not petitioner >icar, were in possession of the 1uestioned lots since$*:.There is e-idence that petitioner >icar occupied ots $ and ), which are not in 1uestion, but not ots 3 and +, because the buildings standing thereonwere only constructed after liberation in $*)&. "etitioner >icar only declared ots 3 and + for taxation purposes in $*&$. The impro-ements oil ots$, 3, +, ) were paid for by the ishop but said ishop was appointed only in $*)%, the church was constructed only in $*&$ and the new con-ent only3 years before the trial in $*+.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505