EN BANC

[G.R. No. 28067. March 10, 1928.]

BASILIA ARAYATA , plaintiff-appellant, vs . FLORENTINO JOYA, ET AL. ,

defendants-appellants.

Emiliano T. Tirona and Andres R. Faustino, for plaintiff-appellant.

Fidel Ibañez, for defendants-appellants.

SYLLABUS

1. FRIAR LANDS; TRANSFER; REQUISITES FOR VALIDITY OF. — The holder of

a certi cate of sale of friar lands, who has not fully paid the purchase price, may
transfer and convey his rights, but the transferee or grantee is- not subrogated to all the
transferor's rights until the transfer has been approved by the Director of Lands and
registered in the registry book of the Bureau of Public Lands.
2. ID.; TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION; LEGACIES. — The holder of a
certi cate of sale of friar lands has no right to dispose by will of his rights to said lands
to the prejudice of his surviving widow and children, notwithstanding the Civil Code
provisions with respect to the conjugal partnership, which cannot be applied in the
instant case, which is governed by a special law, to wit, Act No. 1120.
3. ID.; SUCCESSION; ADMINISTRATION; LEGATEES; FRUITS; GOOD FAITH. —
While a legatee is entitled to the legacy from the moment of the death of his
predecessor, yet when an administrator is appointed in the testate proceeding for the
settlement of his estate, the latter acquires the possession, being obliged to render
account of the fruits, which are subject to the payment of the expenses, and therefore
said legatees cannot allege possession in good faith so as to acquire the fruits
according to the Civil Code, and consequently they are bound to return them to the
estate after deducting the necessary expenses for cultivation and preservation.
4. ID.; ID.; WIDOW'S RIGHTS. — The widow of a holder of a certi cate of sale
of friar lands acquired by the Government has an exclusive right to said lands and their
fruits from her husband's death, provided that the deceased has not conveyed them to
another during his lifetime and she ful lls the requirements prescribed by the law for
the purchase of the same.

DECISION

VILLA-REAL , J : p

In this instance both parties have appealed from the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of Cavite, the dispositive part of which, as amended, is as follows:
"Wherefore, the testamentary clauses and dispositions made by the late
Cecilio Joya concerning one-half of the property left by the deceased and
pertaining to the plaintiff, are hereby declared void in so far as they infringe upon
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 said plaintiffs right, as being contrary to law; the certi cate of sale of lot No.
1058, Exhibit 9, executed by the deceased in favor of defendant Florentino Joya is
null and void, and the plaintiff is hereby declared the sole and exclusive owner of
said lots, or such portions thereof or their value, as the plaintiff may be entitled to
as a result of the liquidation of the testamentary estate; and each and every one
of the defendants, Florentino, Feliciano and Pablo Joya, Asuncion Bobadilla, and
Del n and Felicisima Blanca or, are hereby ordered to deliver lots Nos. 1031,
1058, 1086, 1153, and 2352 to the administrator of the estate of the deceased in
order that he may proceed to the liquidation, partition and distribution of the
latter's estate in accordance with the law and this judgment, as soon as it
becomes nal and executory, the Director of Lands being hereby ordered to
cancel the certi cates of transfer of said lots Nos. 1031, 1058, 1086, 1153 and
2352 registered in the name of said defendants, Florentino Joya on his own
behalf and that of Pablo Joya, Felicisimo Joya, Asuncion Bobadilla, Del n and
Felicisima Blanca or, with the costs of the action against the defendants. So
ordered."
In support of her appeal, plaintiff-appellant assigns the following alleged errors
as committed by the trial court in its decision, to wit: (1) The lower court erred in
declaring the plaintiff owner of only one-half of lots Nos. 1031, 1058, 1086, 1153 and
2352, as conjugal property possessed with the deceased Cecilio Joya, instead of
holding her to be the absolute and exclusive owner of said lots, in accordance with
section 16 of Act No. 1120; (2) the lower court erred in not holding the document of
sale of lot No. 547, Exhibit 10, fraudulent; (3) the lower court erred in amending its
judgment of December 17,1926, thereby exempting the defendants from the obligation
to pay plaintiff the products of the lots in question, from the year 1920 until their
restitution; (4) the lower court erred in amending its judgment rendered on December
17,1926, ordering the delivery of all the lots in question to the administrator of the
estate of the deceased Cecilio Joya, in order that he might proceed to the liquidation
and distribution of the latter's estate in accordance with the law and its judgment; (5)
the lower court erred in not passing upon petition contained in the complaint to the
effect that defendant, Florentino Joya, who was appointed administrator of the estate
of the deceased Cecilio Joya in case No. 1241, be relieved from such duty; (6) the lower
court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial.
The defendants-appellants, in turn, assign the following alleged errors as
committed by the trial court in its decision, to wit: (1) The trial court erred in annulling
the clauses and provisions of the decedent Cecilio Joya's will, Exhibit Y, with respect to
one-half of the property left by said decedent; (2) the trial court erred in holding the
certi cate of sale of lot No. 1058, Exhibit 9, executed by the deceased Cecilio Joya in
favor of defendant Florentino Joya, to be null and void; (3) the trial court erred in nding
that when plaintiff signed the agreement of partition, Exhibit 7, she was unaware of the
contents of the same, and that said agreement of partition has not become legally
effective as against the plaintiff; (4) the trial court erred in holding it to be a fact
admitted by both parties that lots 1153 and 2352 were not donated by Pedro Tiongco
to Cecilio Joya, the corresponding certi cates of transfer by donation, Exhibits F and G,
notwithstanding; (5) the trial court erred in giving more credit to the testimony of the
plaintiff Basilia Arayata than to that of the defendant Florentino Joya; (6) the trial court
erred in admitting plaintiff's Exhibits J, M, N and N-1; (7) the trial court erred in ordering
each and every one of the defendants, Florentino, Feliciano and Pablo Joya, Asuncion
Bobadilla. Del n and Feliciana Blanca or to deliver lots Nos. 1031, 1038, 1086, 1153
and 2352 to the administrator of the estate of the deceased Cecilio Joya in order that
he might proceed with the liquidation, partition, and distribution of the said deceased's
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 estate in accordance with the decision rendered in this case by said trial court; (8) the
trial court erred in holding plaintiff to be the sole and exclusive owner of the lots in
question, or such portions thereof, or their value as may be due her as a result of said
liquidation.
The following are the pertinent and uncontroverted facts necessary for the
decision of this case:
Cecilio Joya, during his lifetime, inherited from his deceased parents the right of
lease to six lots of the friar lands at Santa Cruz de Malabon, municipality of Tanza,
Province of Cavite. On June 4, 1906, Cecilio Joya married the herein plaintiff, Basilia
Arayata. When the Insular Government acquired the said land, Cecilio Joya continued
his lease in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902 and
Act No. 1120 of the Philippine Commission. While married to the herein plaintiff-
appellant, Cecilio Joya purchase the lots he had been leasing, on installments, from the
Government under said Act No. 1120, which were designated as lots Nos. 1031 (Exhibit
C), 1058 (Exhibit D), 1086 (Exhibit E), 1153 (Exhibit F), 2352 Exhibit G) and 547 (Exhibit
H). As the number of lots which a purchaser could acquire under the law was limited,
lots Nos. 1153 and 2352 were excluded and put up for sale. In order not to lose them,
Cecilio Joya had Pedro Tiongco buy them, supplying him with the necessary funds.
Subsequently, Pedro Tiongco transferred his right to said lots to Cecilio Joya by
donation, as appears from Exhibits F and G. These transfers were approved by the
Director of Lands and noted in the proper registry book. On April 24, 1919, Cecilio Joya
conveyed his right to lot No. 1058 to Florentino Joya in consideration of the sum of
P2,000 said conveyance having been approved by the Director of Lands and registered
in the proper registry book (Exhibit 9). On May 11, 1919, Cecilio Joya conveyed his right
to lot No. 547 to Marcelina Joya and Francisco Joya in consideration of the sum of
P450, said conveyance having been approved by the Director of Lands and registered in
the proper registry book (Exhibit 10). On April 27,1919, Cecilio Joya executed a will
devising lot No. 1058 to Florentino Joya, lot No. 1086 to Pablo Joya, lot No. 1031 to
Del n and Felicisima Blanca or, lot No. 1153 to the brothers Agustin and Pedro Joya,
lot No. 2352 to Feliciano and Asuncion Bobadilla, and lot No. 547 (Exhibit Y) to
Marcelina and Francisca Joya. At the time of his death, Cecilio Joya had not yet
completed the payment of the price of the lots mentioned above to the Insular
Government. All the lots in question except lot No. 547, are in the possession of the
defendants, who enjoy their products. On may 10,1920, lots Nos. 2352,1086,1153 and
1031, were transferred to Florentino Joya as administrator of the estate of the
deceased Cecilio Joya. (Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6.)
On May 26,1919, Cecilio Joya died, and on June 9, 1919, his executor, the herein
defendant Florentino Joya, presented said will for probate to the Court of First Instance
of Cavite, which was probated after the proper proceedings. In March, 1920, in the
course of the testamentary proceedings, the executor Florentino Joya presented an
alleged agreement of partition by the legatees, which agreement was disapproved by
the court in view of the herein plaintiff's opposition, who alleged that her signature had
been obtained by fraud.
The questions to be determined in this appeal are purely legal, and, brie y, are as
follows: (1) Were Cecilio Joya's conveyances of his interest in lot No. 1958 1;o
Florentino Joya and in No. 547 to the sisters Marcelina and Francisca Joya fraudulent?
(2) Were Cecilio Joya's legacies of lots Nos. 1031, 1086, 1153 and 2352 to the other
defendants null and void? (3) Has the plaintiff-appellant, as the surviving spouse,
exclusive right to all the lots in question? (4) In case she has, is she entitled to the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 possession and products thereof?
As to the rst question, the pertinent part of section 16 of Act No. 1120 says the
following:
"SEC. 16. . . . In case the holder of the certi cate shall have sold his
interest in the land before having complied with all the conditions thereof, the
purchaser from the holder of the certi cate shall be entitled to all the rights of the
holder of the certi cate upon presenting his assignment to the Chief of the
Bureau of Public Lands for registration."
It will be seen that the holder of a certi cate of sale of friar lands has a right to
sell his interest therein, even before having fully paid the purchase price and upon
presentation of the certi cate of transfer to the Chief of the Bureau of Public Lands for
registration, he is subrogated to all the rights of the holder of the certificate.
The evidence shows that during his lifetime Cecilio Joya conveyed his interest in
lot No. 1058 to Florentino Joya for the sum of P2,000, said conveyance having been
approved by the Director of Lands, and registered in the proper register book of said
o ce. (Exhibit 9.) His right to lot No. 547 was also conveyed by Cecilio Joya to
Marcelina and Francisca Joya during his lifetime, said transfer having been approved by
the Director of Lands, and registered in the proper book in the Bureau of Public Lands.
(Exhibit 10.) Said conveyance having been made in accordance with the provisions of
the law, Florentino Joya on the one hand, and Marcelina and Francisca Joya on the
other, were subrogated to all of Cecilio Joya's rights to said lots, and there is nothing in
the record to show conclusively that said conveyances were fraudulently obtained. The
fact that the testator included said lots in his will and disposed of them in the form of
legacies in favor of said persons, does not in itself show the existence of any fraud. At
most, it may be held as an act of ratification.
In regard to the second and third questions, that is, whether or not the legacies
are null and void, and the plaintiff-appellant, as the surviving spouse, is entitled
exclusively to the lots in question, the pertinent part of said section 16 of Act No. 1120
provides as follows:
"SEC. 16. In the event of the death of a holder of a certi cate the
issuance of which is provided for in section twelve hereof, prior to the execution
of a deed by the Government to any purchaser, his widow shall be entitled to
receive a deed of the land stated in the certi cate upon showing that she has
complied with the requirements of law for the purchase of the same."
In the case of Jocson vs. Soriano, as administrator of the intestate estate of
Silvestre Estacion (45 Phil., 375), this court, interpreting the above-quoted legal
provision, laid down the following doctrine:
"FRIAR ESTATE LANDS; RIGHTS OF THE WIDOW OF THE PURCHASER
AFTER THE DEATH OF THE LATTER. — Under the provisions of section 16 of Act
No. 1120, the widow of a purchaser of a parcel of land belonging to the Friar
Estate, purchased by the Government, after the death of her husband (the
purchaser), is entitled to have a patent issued to her for the lands purchased,
upon a proper showing that she has completed the payment of the purchase
price. The right granted to the original settlers of the friar estate lands to purchase
the parcel or parcels occupied by them at the time of the purchase by the
Government, is a right conceded by the Government, analogous to the homestead
laws. A homestead privilege does not terminate on the husband's death, but is
transferred to his widow and his family. A homestead selected by the husband in
his lifetime vests absolute in his surviving wife, and her rights are governed by the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 law in force at the time of the death of her husband. Neither does she lose said
right by a second marriage upon the death of her husband, the purchaser. She
may continue to occupy the whole of the homestead."
We have seen, in discussing and solving the rst question, that the holder of a
certi cate of sale of friar lands, who has not fully paid the purchase price may transfer
and convey his rights, but that the transferee or grantee is not subrogated to all the
transferor's rights until the transfer has been approved by the Director of Lands and
registered in the registry book in the Bureau of Public Lands. In other words, in order
that a transfer of the rights of a holder of a certi cate of sale of friar lands may be
legally effective, it is necessary that a formal certi cate of transfer be drawn up and
submitted to the Chief of the Bureau of public Lands for his approval and registration.
The law authorizes no other way of transferring the rights of a holder of a certi cate of
sale of friar lands. It provides, however, that in case of the death of said holder, the
surviving spouse shall be entitled to receive the title to the land, upon compliance with
the requirements of the law. If, as it was held in the aforecited case of Jocson vs.
Soriano, the right conferred by Act No. 1120 on the holder of a certi cate of sale of friar
lands is similar to that conferred on the holder of a "homestead," and if the latter has no
right to dispose of said certi cate by will to the prejudice of his surviving spouse and of
his children (29 C. J., 930, par. 342), then, by analogy, the holder of a certi cate of sale
of friar lands cannot dispose of his rights to said lands by will to the prejudice of his
widow and children.
The provisions of the Civil Code referring to conjugal property cannot be applied
in this case, as was done by the trial court, because the law regulating the acquisition,
disposition, and transmission of rights to the friar lands acquired by the Insular
Government, lays down rules in con ict with the aforesaid provisions of the Civil Code;
and as the said Code is of a general character, while Act No. 1120 is a special law, the
latter should prevail.
With respect to the fourth question raised, namely, whether or not the herein
plaintiff-appellant is entitled to the possession and the products of the friar lands
acquired by the Insular Government, which, by virtue of the law, pass exclusively to the
surviving spouse upon compliance of the legal requirements, the answer must be in the
a rmative. The defendants, who are in possession of the said lands, cannot invoke the
provisions of the Civil Code relative to possession in good faith, inasmuch as the
principle on which the right of a holder in good faith is based is the belief that his
possession is with just title under claim of ownership.
While a deceased heirs or legatees acquire the ownership of the property given
them in the will and may take possession of their respective portions upon the death of
their predecessor, yet upon the appointment of an administrator, the latter, by virtue of
his appointment, acquires a right to the possession of the property of estate, subject to
the orders of the court, unless he consents to the heirs continuing in possession
thereof. But such consent does not, however, relieve the administrator of all
responsibility for the management of the same and its fruits; because until the judicial
partition is made, said property continues to belong to the testamentary estate.
(Pimentel vs. Palanca, 5 Phil., 436; Fernandez vs. Tria, 22 Phil., 603.)
Being a matter of law, the defendants-appellants cannot plead ignorance of the
fact that until a judicial partition of the property left by Cecilio Joya is made, said
property belongs to the latter's estate and it, together with its products, is subject to
the payment of the testator's debts, if any. Only after judicial partition has been made
do they acquire the title to their respective legacies, if the latter are valid. (Santos vs.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Roman Catholic Bishop of Nueva Caceres, 45 Phil., 895.)
We have seen that the legacies given by Cecilio Joya to the defendants were void.
If the lands, which are the subject matter of said legacies and which are in the
possession of the defendants, still belong to Cecilio Joya's estate, because no judicial
partition has as yet been made of the property he left, which is subject, together with its
fruits, to the payment of his debts, said defendants cannot invoke the provisions of the
Civil Code with respect to possession in good faith insofar as the fruits are concerned;
because even when the legacies are valid they are acquired only when the latter are
judicially assigned to them in the nal partition, and because, while said lands are under
administration, the administrator is obliged to render an account of his management of
the same and the products thereof.
In conclusion, then, we hold that the defendants are not entitled to the
possession of the lands in question or their products, and they are bound to return
them to the herein plaintiff-appellant, after deducting the necessary expenses for
cultivation and preservation. (Art 453, Civil Code.)
Summarizing all that has been said above, we find:
1. That Cecilio Joya's transfers during his lifetime of lot No. 1058 to
Florentino Joya and lot No. 547 to the sisters Marcelina and Francisca Joya, with the
approval of the Director of Lands, are bona fide, and therefore legal and valid.
2. That Cecilio Joya's legacies in his will of lot No. 1031 to Del n and
Felicisima Blanca or, lot No. 1086 to Pablo Joya, lot No. 1152 to the brothers Agustin
and Pedro Joya, and lot No. 2352 to Feliciano and Asuncion Bobadilla are null and void,
being contrary to the provisions of section 16 of Act No. 1120, which grants his widow,
the herein plaintiff-appellant, the ownership of the lands purchased and not transferred
by him during his lifetime, provided that she complies with the legal requirements for
the purchase of the same.
3. The plaintiff-appellant is entitled to the exclusive ownership and
possession of the aforementioned lots Nos. 1031,1086,1153, and 2352 and to their
fruits, after deducting the necessary expenses of preservation, cultivation and
production.
For the foregoing, the judgment appealed from is modi ed, and it is ordered that
Feliciano and Pablo Joya, Asuncion Bobadilla, Del n and Felicisima Blanca or return
lots Nos. 1031, 1086, 1153, and 2352 to the plaintiff-appellant, Basilia Arayata,
together with their products, or the latter's equivalent in cash from the year 1920 until
their restitution, deducting the necessary expenses of cultivation, preservation, and
production. Without any special pronouncement as to costs, it is so ordered.
Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com