Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    Bambalan vs. Maramba

    Uploaded by

    qwertyanon
    The plaintiff sued the defendants, claiming he did not sell land to them that was rightfully his. The defendants argued they purchased the land from the plaintiff according to a document signed by the plaintiff. However, the court found the document invalid because the plaintiff was a minor at the time of signing and there was no evidence he intended to sell the land. As the defendants did not legally acquire the land, the court affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bambalan vs. Maramba

    Uploaded by

    qwertyanon
    54 views2 pages
    The plaintiff sued the defendants, claiming he did not sell land to them that was rightfully his. The defendants argued they purchased the land from the plaintiff according to a document signed by the plaintiff. However, the court found the document invalid because the plaintiff was a minor at the time of signing and there was no evidence he intended to sell the land. As the defendants did not legally acquire the land, the court affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.

    Original Description:

    Full text of Bambalan vs. Maramba

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The plaintiff sued the defendants, claiming he did not sell land to them that was rightfully his. The defendants argued they purchased the land from the plaintiff according to a document signed by the plaintiff. However, the court found the document invalid because the plaintiff was a minor at the time of signing and there was no evidence he intended to sell the land. As the defendants did not legally acquire the land, the court affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    54 views2 pages

    Bambalan vs. Maramba

    Uploaded by

    qwertyanon
    The plaintiff sued the defendants, claiming he did not sell land to them that was rightfully his. The defendants argued they purchased the land from the plaintiff according to a document signed by the plaintiff. However, the court found the document invalid because the plaintiff was a minor at the time of signing and there was no evidence he intended to sell the land. As the defendants did not legally acquire the land, the court affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    8/9/2019 [ G.R. No.

    27710, January 30, 1928 ]

    51 Phil. 417

    [ G.R. No. 27710, January 30, 1928 ]

    ISIDRO BAMBALAN Y PRADO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. GERMAN


    MARAMBA AND GENOVEVA MUERONG, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

    DECISION

    ROMUALDEZ, J.:

    The defendants admit in their amended answer those paragraphs of the complaint wherein it
    is alleged that Isidro Bambalan y Calcotura was the owner, with Torrens title, of the land
    here in question and that the plaintiff is the sole and universal heir of the said deceased
    Isidro Bambalan y Calcotura, especially as regards the said land. This being so, the
    fundamental question to be resolved in this case is whether or not the plaintiff sold the land
    in question to the defendants.

    The defendants affirm they did and as proof of such transfer present document Exhibit 1,
    dated July 17, 1922. The plaintiff asserts that while it is true that he signed said document,
    yet, he did so by intimidation made upon his mother Paula Prado by the defendant Genoveva
    Muerong, who threatened the former with imprisonment. While the evidence on this
    particular point does not decisively support the plaintiff's allegation, this document, however,
    is vitiated to the extent of being void as regards the said plaintiff, for the reason that the
    latter, at the time he signed it, was a minor, which is clearly shown by the record and it does
    not appear that it was his real intention to sell the land in question.

    What is deduced from the record is, that his mother Paula Prado and the latter's second
    husband Vicente Lagera, having received a certain sum of money by way of a loan from
    Genoveva Muerong in 1915 which, according to Exhibit 3, was P200 and according to the
    testimony of Paula Prado, was P150, and Genoveva Muerong having learned later that the
    land within which was included that described in said Exhibit 3, had a Torrens title issued in
    favor of the plaintiff's father, of which the latter is the only heir and caused the plaintiff to
    sign a conveyance of the land.

    At any rate, even supposing that the document in question, Exhibit 1, embodies all of the
    requisites prescribed by law for its efficacy, yet, it does not, according to the provisions of
    section 50 of Act No. 496, bind the land and would only be a valid contract between the
    parties and as evidence of authority to the register of deeds to make the proper registration,
    inasmuch as it is the registration that gives validity to the transfer. Therefore, the
    defendants, by virtue of the document Exhibit 1 alone, did not acquire any right to the
    property sold and much less, if it is taken into consideration that, according to the evidence
    in the record, the vendor Isidro Bambalan y Prado, the herein plakitiff, was a minor.

    As regards this minority, the doctrine laid down in the case of Mercado and Mercado vs.
    Espiritu (37 Phil., 215), wherein the minor was held to be estopped from contesting the
    contract executed by him pretending to be of age, is not applicable herein. In the case now
    elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 1/2
    8/9/2019 [ G.R. No. 27710, January 30, 1928 ]

    before us the plaintiff did not pretend to be of age; his minority was well known to the
    purchaser, the defendant, who was the one who purchased the plaintiff's first cedula to be
    used in the acknowledgment of the document.

    In regard to the amount of money that the defendants allege to have given the plaintiff and
    her son in 1922 as the price of the land, the preponderance of evidence shows that no
    amount was given by the defendants to the alleged vendors in said year, but that the sum of
    P663.40, which appears in the document Exhibit 1, is arrived at, approximately, by taking
    the P150 received by Paula Prado and her husband in 1915 and adding thereto interest at the
    rate of 50 per cent per annum, then agreed upon, or P75 a year for seven years up to July
    31, 1922, the date of Exhibit 1.

    The damages claimed by the plaintiff have not been sufficiently proven, because the witness
    Paula Prado was the only one who testified thereto, whose testimony was contradicted by
    that of the defendant Genoveva Muerong who, moreover, asserts that she possesses about
    half of the land in question. There are, therefore, not sufficient data in the record to award
    the damages claimed by the plaintiff.

    In view of the foregoing, the dispositive part of the decision appealed from is hereby
    affirmed, without any express finding as to the costs in this instance. So ordered.

    Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

    Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: June 26, 2014


    This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System

    Supreme Court E-Library

    elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/elibsearch 2/2

    You might also like