GR 32480; (October, 1930) (Digest)

G.R. No. 32480, October 3, 1930
MANUELA MACASAET, plaintiff-appellant, vs. TOMASA MASONGSONG, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Benito Africa originally owned the land in question. In 1882, he donated it propter nuptias to his fiancée, Tomasa Masongsong (later his wife). In 1906, Benito executed another public instrument, donating the same land in equal parts to Tomasa, their daughters Natividad and Patrocinio Africa, and Jose Galo Africa, with possession to take effect after his death. Tomasa participated in this second donation. In a civil case, plaintiff Manuela Macasaet obtained a judgment against Natividad Africa, and at an execution sale on August 21, 1921, Macasaet purchased Natividad’s interest in the land for P3,134.68. On December 27, 1923, Tomasa, Natividad, Patrocinio, and Jose Africa applied for registration of the land under the Torrens system without disclosing Macasaet’s interest. A decree and certificate of title were issued solely in Tomasa’s name. After registration, the land was sold to an innocent purchaser for value. Macasaet filed a motion to review the decree on grounds of fraud, which was denied. She then filed this action under Section 38 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act) to recover the land’s value (alleged to be P10,000) from the defendants, and alternatively, from the Assurance Fund.

ISSUE

1. Whether the defendants committed fraud in obtaining the registration of the land, thereby depriving Macasaet of her interest.
2. Whether Macasaet is entitled to recover damages from the defendants and/or the Assurance Fund.

RULING

1. On Fraud and Assurance Fund Liability: The Supreme Court found that the evidence did not sufficiently establish actual fraud by the defendants in procuring the registration. Testimony indicated that Macasaet was aware of the registration proceedings and had even encouraged the defendants to proceed with registration so that the land could be sold or mortgaged to pay her debt. Consequently, the decree of registration could not be reopened due to the involvement of an innocent purchaser for value. Since Macasaet was not deprived of her land “without negligence on her part,” she could not recover from the Assurance Fund. The lower court’s judgment absolving the Insular Treasurer (as custodian of the Assurance Fund) was affirmed.

2. On Liability of Individual Defendants: The Court held that Macasaet was entitled to recover from the defendants Tomasa Masongsong, Jose Africa, Natividad Africa, and Patrocinio Africa. By the 1906 donation, legal title to the land became vested in these four individuals in equal parts. They were jointly and severally liable to Macasaet for the value of Natividad’s interest, which Macasaet had legally acquired at the execution sale. The Court modified the lower court’s decision and ordered these defendants to pay Macasaet P3,134.68 (the bid price at the sheriff’s sale) plus 6% interest from August 21, 1921, with each defendant liable for one-fourth of the amount. Costs of appeal were awarded against these defendants.