GR L 3597; (September, 1907) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑3597 (September 24, 1907)
FACTS
– Plaintiff Manuel Mesia sued Placido Mazo and Restituta Morana for reconveyance of a parcel of land and ₱224 damages, alleging unlawful detention.
– Defendants denied the allegations; Restituta claimed ownership by inheritance and that she had hypothecated the land to Miguelita Machete in 1893, subsequently redeeming it in 1903.
– Trial court found: (1) Restituta was the rightful owner, having inherited the land and later redeemed the mortgage; (2) Plaintiff knew of the mortgage and had no valid title; (3) Placido, her husband, had only an interest by marriage.
– Lower court ruled for the defendants, assessed costs against the plaintiff.
– Plaintiff appealed, raising four errors: (a) decision issued solely in English; (b) mischaracterization of the 1893 transaction as a mortgage rather than a sale; (c) error in finding the land was repurchased; (d) error in declaring Restituta the owner.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of First Instance erred in (1) rendering its judgment only in English, (2) characterizing the 1893 transaction as a mortgage, (3) finding the land was repurchased by Restituta, and (4) declaring Restituta Morana the owner of the disputed land.
RULING
1. Language of Judgment While rendering a decision without a Spanish translation is technically erroneous under §503 of the Civil Procedure Code, the error is not sufficient to overturn the judgment, especially given Act No. 11231 which permits non‑translation under specified conditions.
2. Nature of 1893 Transaction The evidence, bearing a preponderance in favor of the trial court, supports the finding that the 1893 conveyance to Miguelita Machete was a mortgage, not a sale.
3. Repurchase Finding The trial court correctly concluded that Restituta redeemed the hypothecated land in 1903; the evidence substantiates this.
4. Ownership Determination Sufficient proof shows Restituta Morana inherited and lawfully possessed the land. The lower court’s declaration of her ownership stands.
Disposition The judgment of the Court of First Instance is AFFIRMED; costs awarded to the defendants.
Concurrence: Chief Justice Arellano and Justices Torres, Willard, and Tracey.