Barrios v. Dolor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Manuel Barrios y Barredo filed an action against the defendants, heirs of the late Don Ciriaco Demonteverde, seeking to recover one-half of a sugar estate and its stock. Barrios claimed he purchased these from Demonteverde. Procedural History: Barrios attached a public instrument executed on February 3, 1883, by himself and Demonteverde, stipulating a partnership for the operation of the estate and establishing community of ownership. This instrument was not recorded in the registry of property. Defendant Maria Pascuala Dolor moved to exclude the instrument as evidence, citing Article 389 of the Mortgage Law, arguing it was not registered. The trial court granted this motion. The Petition: Plaintiff appealed the order of the trial court which excluded the instrument as evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendants, as heirs of Don Ciriaco Demonteverde, can be considered third persons within the meaning of the Mortgage Law. Whether the unregistered public instrument can be admitted as evidence despite the provisions of Article 389 of the Mortgage Law.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and annulled the order of the lower court, overruling the motion to exclude the instrument as evidence. The Court held that the defendants, as heirs, are not third persons under the Mortgage Law and thus cannot avail themselves of the prohibition against unregistered instruments.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the defendants, as heirs, can be considered third persons under the Mortgage Law: The Court held that heirs are not third persons with respect to contracts entered into by their decedent. Article 27 of the Mortgage Law defines a third person as one who has not taken part in the act or contract recorded. Since Demonteverde was a party to the contract, his heirs, who are the judicial continuation of his personality and subrogated to his rights and obligations, cannot be considered third persons. This principle is supported by decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, which have consistently held that heirs are a continuation of the legal personality of their decedent and not third persons for the purposes of the Mortgage Law. Therefore, the defendants cannot avail themselves of the prohibition contained in Article 389 of the Mortgage Law. On whether the unregistered public instrument can be admitted as evidence: Because the defendants are not third persons, the prohibition in Article 389 of the Mortgage Law, which is established solely in favor of third persons, cannot be invoked by them. The Court found it unnecessary to determine whether the instrument was subject to inscription under Article 2 of the Mortgage Law. Regardless of its registrability, the failure to record it does not bar its admission as evidence because the action is not brought against a third person as contemplated by the law. To allow the heirs to set up this exception would place them in a superior position to the decedent, which is legally illogical as they are merely a continuation of his civil personality. Consequently, the order excluding the instrument was reversed.
Main Doctrine
Heirs are not considered third persons with respect to contracts entered into by their decedent for the purposes of the Mortgage Law, and therefore cannot invoke the prohibition against the admission of unregistered instruments as evidence.