GR 559; (March, 1903) (Digest)
G.R. No. 559 : March 14, 1903
MANUEL BARRIOS Y BARREDO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MARIA PASCUALA DOLOR, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS:
The plaintiff, Manuel Barrios y Barredo, filed an action to recover from the defendants, the heirs of the late Don Ciriaco Demonteverde, one-half of a sugar estate and its stock. He claimed to have purchased this share from Demonteverde, supporting his claim with a public instrument executed on February 3, 1883, which he alleged established a contract of partnership and a community of ownership over the estate between himself and Demonteverde. This instrument was not recorded in the registry of property. The defendant, Maria Pascuala Dolor, filed an incidental motion to have the instrument excluded as evidence, citing Article 389 of the Mortgage Law, which prohibits courts from admitting unrecorded documents for enforcing rights against a third party. The lower court granted the motion, ordering the instrument excluded. The plaintiff appealed this order.
ISSUE:
Whether the defendants, as heirs of Don Ciriaco Demonteverde, are considered “third persons” under Article 389 of the Mortgage Law, thereby entitling them to have the unrecorded instrument excluded from evidence.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the lower court. The Court held that the defendants, as heirs, are not “third persons” with respect to the contract executed by their decedent, Don Ciriaco Demonteverde. Under Article 27 of the Mortgage Law, a third person is defined as “he who has not taken part in the act or contract recorded.” Since Demonteverde was a party to the contract, he was not a third person. His heirs, being the judicial continuation of his personality and subrogated to all his rights and obligations by succession (Article 661, Civil Code), cannot attain a status superior to that of their predecessor. They stand in his place and therefore are also not considered third parties. Consequently, the prohibition in Article 389 of the Mortgage Law, which operates solely for the benefit of third persons, does not apply. The unrecorded instrument is admissible in evidence against the heirs. The Court found it unnecessary to determine whether the instrument was subject to inscription. The order excluding the evidence was annulled.