G.R. No. 9233; September 13, 1915
MANUEL DE LEON, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SANTIAGO GOMEZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
On May 18, 1910, Manuel de Leon filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Cavite to recover possession and be declared owner of a parcel of land in San Roque, Cavite. The defendant, Santiago Gomez, failed to answer, leading to a default judgment in favor of de Leon on June 17, 1910. Gomez moved to set aside the default judgment, but the motion was denied. On appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the default judgment and remanded the case for new trial on March 27, 1911.

During the new trial, Gomez demurred to the complaint (which was overruled) and filed an answer claiming ownership of half of the land. The evidence established that Juan Gomez had been the sole owner and possessor of the land for thirty years. On February 19, 1910, Juan Gomez sold the entire parcel to Manuel de Leon via a public deed (Exhibit A), and the tax declaration was transferred to de Leon on the same day. However, on April 6, 1910, while gravely ill, Juan Gomez executed another document (Exhibit 2) stating that the land was inherited equally by him and his brother Timoteo from their father Rufino Gomez, and that Santiago Gomez (allegedly Timoteo’s son) owned one-half, with Juan Gomez purportedly transferring his remaining half to Santiago. The trial court found that Santiago Gomez was not the legitimate son of Timoteo Gomez and that Exhibit 2 was executed after Juan Gomez had already sold the land to de Leon, with Santiago having knowledge of the prior sale.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in declaring Manuel de Leon the rightful owner of the land based on the deed of absolute sale (Exhibit A) from Juan Gomez, notwithstanding the subsequent document (Exhibit 2) executed by Juan Gomez in favor of Santiago Gomez.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Court held that Exhibit A constituted an absolute sale of the entire land from Juan Gomez to Manuel de Leon, using clear and comprehensive language (“I cede, sell and transfer the above-described in absolute sale”). The transfer was supported by the public document and the immediate transfer of the tax declaration. The subsequent Exhibit 2, executed when Juan Gomez was near death, could not validly convey the land to Santiago Gomez because Juan Gomez had already divested himself of ownership by the prior sale to de Leon. Moreover, the evidence showed Santiago Gomez was not the legitimate heir of Timoteo Gomez and had knowledge of the prior sale. Thus, Manuel de Leon was rightfully declared the owner and entitled to possession of the land. Costs were awarded against the appellant.