Lichauco v. Tan Pho

35 Lichauco v.
Tan Pho
of the order or merely limited to such a portion thereof and
G.R. No. 19512, 19511, 19595 | Pontente that the part lacking from the record constitutes a necessary
Sarigumba III, Norberto part, an inevitable and ordinary consequence of the portion
appearing in the record.
NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER
DOCTRINE: FACTS:
Nunc pro tunc means “now for then” or that a thing is done This case involves 3 cases regarding a contract of lease that
now shall have the same legal force and effect as if done at was entered into between the LESSORS: (1) Geronimo Jose
the time it ought to have been done. A court may order an as guardian of Zacarias Lichauco; (2) Amparo N. Jose as
act done nunc pro tunc when it, or some of its immediate
guardian of the minors, Luis and Julita Lichauco; and (3)
ministerial officers, has done some act which for some
Galo Lichauco, and the LESSEE: Tan Pho.
reason has not been entered in the record or otherwise
noted at the time the order or judgment was made or should
have been made to appear on the papers or proceedings by CASE A involved the nullification of the said contract of
the ministerial officer. lease.
The office of a nunc pro tunc order is to record some act of CASE B was the guardianship proceedings of Zacarias
the court done at a former time which was not then carried
Lichauco where Tan Pho, the lessee, filed a petition for the
into the record, and the power of a court to make such
court to issue a nunc pro tunc order with regards to the
entries is restricted to placing upon the record of evidence of
judicial action which had been actually taken. It may be used judicial approval of the contract of lease. The said petition
to make the record speak the truth, but not to make it speak was impliedly granted by the court at that time.
what it did not speak but ought to have spoken.
In CASE C, Tan Pho sought to enforce the nunc pro tunc
The doctrine established by jurisprudence is that it is order that was supposed to have been granted in CASE B.
required that the records of the court should show some
However, such order is now being contested because there
visible data of the order which is being desired to be entered
is no evidence on the court’s records that the said order was
by the nunc pro tunc order. Such data may refer to the whole
indeed issued. There are even contradictory testimonies
G.R. 19512 (Case A)
between the Judge and the deputy clerk assigned on the
case at that time.
What is involved in this case is the nullity of a contract of lease
of land. The parties to the said contract are as follows:
ISSUE:
1. W/N a judicial approval to authorize the contract of
lease was indeed rendered by the court in Case B and if  LESSORS: (1) Geronimo Jose as guardian of Zacarias
it was given, even verbally, would such already be a Lichauco; (2) Amparo N. Jose as guardian of the
sufficient ground for a nunc pro tunc order. (NO) minors, Luis and Julita Lichauco; and (3) Galo Lichauco
2. W/N a nunc pro tunc order may be entered when  LESSEE: Tan Pho
nothing appears from the files forming a part of the
record, upon which such an order may be based. (NO)
This nullification case was instituted by Faustino Lichauco,
who was the guardian ad litem of the minors, Luis and Julita
RULING:
In the case at bar, there is no showing that a data, partial or Lichauco, and the incapacitated, Zacarias Lichauco. The CFI of
integral, exists on the record regarding the alleged Manila declared the lease as valid. The Lichaucos appealed
authorization released by the court in approving the contract from the said decision.
of lease. This is despite the fact that our courts have been
recognized as courts of record and that any judgment or G.R. 19511 (Case B)
record must appear in writing.
During the guardianship proceedings for Zacarias Lichauco,

Because of the absence of such a proof, the Supreme Court
declared that the contract of lease entered between the Tan Pho filed a petition for the court to issue a nunc pro tunc
lessors and the lessee is void. order regarding the judicial authorization of the contract of
lease which was also the subject of controversy in Case A.
Amparo Jose posed an objection to the petition of Pho.
FACTS: The nunc pro tunc order was impliedly granted. Amparo
This case involves three joint petitions submitted by the appealed from the said decision.
parties.
G.R. 19595 (Case C)
by the court in the guardianship proceedings in Case B.
Tan Pho once again presented a petition for a nunc pro tunc There are also conflicting testimonies between Judge
order for the contract of lease that was also disputed in Cases A.S. Crossfield who was then in-charge of the said case
and Atty. Canillas who was the deputy clerk at that
A and B.
time.
Amparo objected once more to the petition of Pho and filed a Judge Crossfield testified that in the presence and with
motion for reconsideration on the case where the validity of the approval of all the involved parties, he authorized
the lease was upheld. However, the prior decision was the contract of lease and consequently, he ordered the
affirmed. clerk to prepare orders for entry in Case B.
However, Atty. Canillas provided in his affidavit that

In the present petition, the lessors are assailing the validity of
after examining the records of all the judgments and
the contract of lease because (1) the guardians of the orders of court for the year 1913, he was unable to find
incapacitated and minors therein could not have executed it; any authorization or approval for the said contract of
(2) the court did not authorize the said contract; and (3) Tan lease. He also said that Judge Crossfield did not give
Pho had no power to enter into such a contract. him an order for entry in the record of such an approval
and that if ever the Judge did issue such an order, he
ISSUES: would have made a note about it right away.
3. W/N a judicial approval to authorize the contract of
lease was indeed rendered by the court in Case B and if 2. For the second issue, the Supreme Court explained the
it was given, even verbally, would such already be a nature of a judgment nunc pro tunc. Nunc pro tunc
sufficient ground for a nunc pro tunc order. (NO) means “now for then” or that a thing is done now shall
4. W/N a nunc pro tunc order may be entered when have the same legal force and effect as if done at the
nothing appears from the files forming a part of the time it ought to have been done. A court may order an
record, upon which such an order may be based. (NO) act done nunc pro tunc when it, or some of its
immediate ministerial officers, has done some act
RULING: which for some reason has not been entered in the
record or otherwise noted at the time the order or
1. Regarding the petition for approval of the contract of judgment was made or should have been made to
lease, the Supreme Court pointed out there was no appear on the papers or proceedings by the ministerial
written order, either favorable or not, that was issued officer.
In the case at bar, there is no showing that a data,
Its office is to record some act of the court done at a partial or integral, exists on the record regarding the
former time which was not then carried into the record, alleged authorization released by the court in approving
and the power of a court to make such entries is the contract of lease. This is despite the fact that our
restricted to placing upon the record of evidence of courts have been recognized as courts of record and
judicial action which had been actually taken. It may be that any judgment or record must appear in writing.
used to make the record speak the truth, but not to
make it speak what it did not speak but ought to have Because of the absence of such a proof, the Supreme
spoken. Court declared that the contract of lease entered
between the lessors and lessee is void.
However, if the court has not rendered a judgment that
it might or should have rendered, or if it has rendered DISPOSITION:
an improper or an imperfect judgment, the court cannot WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
remedy these errors or omissions by ordering the entry
nunc pro tunc of a proper judgment. Hence, a court
entering a judgment nunc pro tunc has no power to
construe what the judgment means but only to enter of
record such judgment as had been formerly rendered
but which had not been entered of record as rendered
While we do not have any positive statute governing

nunc pro tunc orders, the doctrine established by
jurisprudence requires that the records of the court
would show some visible data of the order which is
being desired to be entered by the nunc pro tunc order.
Such data may refer to the whole of the order or merely
limited to such a portion thereof and that the part
lacking from the record constitutes a necessary part,
an inevitable and ordinary consequence of the portion
appearing in the record.

Lichauco v. Tan Pho

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lichauco v. Tan Pho

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lichauco v. Tan Pho

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

35 Lichauco v.

During the guardianship proceedings for Zacarias Lichauco,

However, Atty. Canillas provided in his affidavit that

While we do not have any positive statute governing

You might also like