G.R. No. 33811 ; March 2, 1931
MAXIMO BENUSA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. JOSE TORRES, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Plaintiffs, the Benusa family, filed an action to recover two parcels of land and damages. They alleged that a deed of sale executed by Lucas Benusa in favor of defendant Jose Y. Torres on November 13, 1920, was fictitious and void. Torres later sold the property to defendant Avelino V. Mationg in 1926. The Court of First Instance of Capiz ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring them co-owners, annulling the deeds of sale as fraudulent, ordering reconveyance, and awarding damages. Defendants appealed, challenging the trial court’s rulings on evidence, the judge’s refusal to recuse himself, the declaration of co-ownership, the nullity of the deeds, and the award of damages.

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting certain exhibits and in denying the motion for recusation of the judge.
2. Whether the deeds of sale were fictitious and void.
3. Whether the plaintiffs are co-owners entitled to recovery of the land.
4. Whether the award of damages was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.
1. The rejection of exhibits was harmless error, as their admission would not have changed the outcome. The motion for recusation was properly denied, as alleged prejudice or animosity is not a legal ground for disqualification under the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The deeds of sale (Exhibit B and Exhibit 22) were indeed fictitious, fraudulent, and therefore null and void. The evidence solidly supported the finding that the conveyances were not genuine.
3. The plaintiffs were rightfully declared co-owners of the land and entitled to its recovery.
4. The award of damages was sustained, as the plaintiffs’ evidence on unrealized fruits from the land was unrebutted and sufficient. However, three Justices dissented, arguing that the damages should be eliminated.

AI Generated by Armztrong.