GR L 15487; (December, 1920) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15487, December 16, 1920
ANACLETA CORTEZ VIUDA DE CASTRO, petitioner-appellee, vs. PEDRO BIBAÑO and CRISPULO BERAMO, objectors-appellants.
FACTS:
Petitioner Anacleta Cortez Vda. de Castro applied for the registration of Hacienda San Jose in Pilar, Capiz, which she acquired in 1909. The hacienda was originally owned by partners Regino Ramirez (married to Caridad Funcion) and Jose Rodriguez around 1892 and expanded through acquisitions of adjacent parcels. Oppositors Pedro Bibaño and Crispulo Beramo (substituting Juan Beramo) contested portions of the land. The trial court granted registration in favor of the petitioner and overruled the oppositions.
Regarding Bibaño’s parcel, evidence showed it was sold by Bibaño to Rodriguez and Ramirez in 1894 for P500. Although a deed of sale was executed, the price remained unpaid due to an alleged agreement to pay upon Bibaño’s need. Bibaño denied this and claimed he demanded payment but received only a document deferring payment.
Regarding Beramo’s parcel (portion 12-1), evidence indicated it was purchased from Juan Beramo by Caridad Funcion in 1893 for P1,000. However, the oppositors presented a document (Exhibit 28) dated 1895, wherein Funcion declared that because the price was not paid as agreed, she returned the land as if no sale occurred. The trial court rejected this document.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the petitioner may register the parcel claimed by Bibaño despite non-payment of the purchase price.
2. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting Exhibit 28 and in denying Beramo’s opposition.
RULING:
1. As to Bibaño’s parcel: The Supreme Court held that the sale was valid and transferred ownership to the purchasers, but the non-payment of the price gave Bibaño the right to resolve (rescind) the contract under Article 1124 of the Civil Code. Thus, registration in the petitioner’s name was proper, but subject to a charge or lien in favor of Bibaño, reserving his right to seek resolution of the sale for non-payment.
2. As to Beramo’s parcel: The Supreme Court ruled that Exhibit 28 was material and decisive evidence regarding the petitioner’s right to register the land. The trial court erred in rejecting it. The case was remanded for a new trial, with instructions to admit and consider Exhibit 28 after proper identification.
The appealed judgment was modified: registration of Bibaño’s parcel was affirmed subject to the stated charge; and the decision on Beramo’s parcel was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. No costs were awarded.