G.R. No. L-20047 June 30, 1967
PETRA HAWPIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and AURELIA ALTEA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Petra Hawpia purchased Lot No. 8610 from Valeriano Neala under a pacto de retro sale in 1932. She subsequently obtained registration of the lot in her name, and Original Certificate of Title No. 43125 was issued. Neala’s right to repurchase the lot was later levied upon and sold at public auction in 1937 to satisfy a judgment debt owed to Jose Escasa. The highest bidder at the auction was Aurelia Altea, the common-law wife of Jose Escasa, a Chinese citizen. A final certificate of sale was issued to Altea. Altea successfully petitioned the cadastral court to reopen the decree of registration in favor of Hawpia, resulting in the cancellation of Hawpia’s title and the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 20400 in Altea’s name. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. In 1947, Jose Escasa filed an action against Altea (Civil Case No. 476) alleging that several parcels of land, including Lot No. 8610, were acquired with his funds but registered in Altea’s name because, as a Chinese citizen, he was constitutionally prohibited from owning land. He sought reconveyance of the properties to their children. The parties reconciled, and Altea later signed a “Salaysay sa Juzgado” admitting the allegations in Escasa’s complaint. Consequently, a judgment was rendered declaring the eight lots, including Lot No. 8610, as the property of the minor children of Escasa and Altea. Upon learning of this judgment, Hawpia and her husband filed the present action (Civil Case No. 5271) against Altea and Escasa, seeking cancellation of TCT No. 20400 and reconveyance of the lot. They alleged that the auction purchase by Altea was a dummy transaction for Escasa, was tainted with fraud, and violated the constitutional prohibition against aliens acquiring agricultural land. The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal but modified the judgment by sentencing Hawpia to pay Altea actual and moral damages and attorney’s fees, noting that Hawpia had filed multiple unsuccessful cases against Altea and Escasa, constituting harassment.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in not declaring the purchase of Lot No. 8610 null and void for being made by a Chinese citizen in violation of the Constitution; (2) whether it erred in not ordering the reconveyance of the lot to petitioner; and (3) whether it erred in sentencing petitioner to pay damages to respondent.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that petitioner failed to substantiate her claim that the real purchaser at the auction was Jose Escasa and not Aurelia Altea. The Court emphasized that the cadastral court’s decision, which ordered the issuance of title in Altea’s name after reopening the decree, had long become final and was affirmed by the Supreme Court; thus, the fact that the lot belonged to Altea must be accepted. Regarding the award of damages, the Court found that petitioner, with “blind persistence,” had filed numerous criminal and civil cases against Altea and Escasa, none of which prospered. This course of action constituted harassment that caused Altea actual damages, moral suffering, and anxiety, justifying the award of damages and attorney’s fees. The appealed decision was affirmed in accordance with law and the evidence.