Casimiro v. Fernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Pedro Casimiro sought to enjoin the sheriff and defendant Jose Fernandez from selling a kiosk located at the Bridge of Spain, Manila, which Casimiro claimed to own. The sheriff seized the kiosk as property of Arias Quintos, a debtor of Fernandez. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that payment of taxes by Quintos constituted evidence of title and that the sale contract was inoperative against third parties due to lack of registration. The Petition: The plaintiff appealed the decision, arguing that the lower court erred in its assessment of evidence and legal application.
Issue(s)
Whether the payment of taxes by Arias Quintos constitutes sufficient evidence of his ownership or possession of the kiosk. Whether the unregistered contract of sale with a pacto de retro between Quintos and Casimiro is operative as against third persons, specifically creditors with attachments.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, ordering the issuance of an injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff. No costs were awarded.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of payment of taxes as evidence of ownership: The Court held that the payment of taxes on property is not alone sufficient evidence of ownership or possession. Such acts, along with cutting timber and keeping off trespassers, are merely acts of ownership tending to show a claim of ownership, but do not constitute possession in themselves. The Court cited Pharis vs. Jones to support this. Furthermore, the plaintiff's failure to pay taxes or the continued payment by the seller by mistake does not cause the plaintiff to lose his property. Entries in tax books made before the plaintiff's purchase cannot be considered admissions by him in conflict with his title. On the issue of the unregistered sale with pacto de retro: The Court ruled that a contract of sale is valid between the parties without registration. It is also effective as against third persons who do not hold a registered title. This includes creditors who have levied attachments on the property. The Court relied on its previous ruling in Fabian vs. Smith, Bell & Co. to establish that an unregistered sale is valid against third-party creditors with attachments.
Main Doctrine
A contract of sale with a pacto de retro is effective as against third persons, including creditors with attachments, even if unregistered, provided they do not hold a prior registered title. Payment of taxes on property is not sufficient evidence of ownership or possession.