Daza v. Tomacruz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Iñigo S. Daza filed an action for partition of a parcel of land and improvements, damages, and accounting against defendants Felisa Tomacruz and Pablo Tanjutco. The property was described in certificate of title No. 3411, issued in the name of Felisa Tomacruz, despite it also belonging to her brother, Rev. Father Tirso Tomacruz. Felisa mortgaged the property to the Philippine National Bank on October 24, 1927, without Father Tirso's intervention. A month later, Felisa conveyed one-half of the property to Father Tirso via absolute sale without consideration, which was a recognition of his co-ownership. This sale was not immediately noted on the title. Felisa then constituted a second mortgage on March 8, 1929, for P2,000, which was noted on the title the next day. Father Tirso sold his share to the plaintiff, Daza, on November 29, 1929. Daza registered the deed of sale and Felisa's sale to Father Tirso on December 4, 1929. Upon learning of the existing lien, Daza demanded redemption from Father Tirso. Father Tirso refunded P3,225.84 to Daza, and instead of redeeming the mortgage, Daza bought the Philippine National Bank's rights, becoming a mortgage creditor. This purchase was recorded on January 7, 1931. Daza then demanded partition, which was refused, leading to the institution of the action. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Bulacan ordered the partition of the property, appointed partition commissioners, approved the majority report, and prohibited the defendants from taking fish from the fishery without court permission. The defendants appealed these orders. The Petition: The defendants appealed the judgment and subsequent orders, assigning twenty-one alleged errors. The Supreme Court identified four main questions: (1) whether the sale to appellee was fictitious; (2) whether appellants were entitled to reimbursement for improvements; (3) whether they were entitled to legal redemption; and (4) whether appellee was entitled to partition.
Issue(s)
Whether the sale executed in favor of the appellee was fictitious. Whether the appellants are entitled to a reimbursement of the alleged expenses for improvements. Whether the appellants are still entitled to exercise the right of legal redemption. Whether the appellee is entitled to the partition sought by him. Whether the subsequent orders regarding partition commissioners, approval of their report, and prohibition to sell fish were proper.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellants. The partition is ordered, and the prohibition against taking fish without court permission stands.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the sale to the appellee was fictitious: The appellants abandoned their claim that the purchase by the appellee of one-half of the property was fictitious and fraudulent. This abandonment was based on the overwhelming evidence presented by the appellee, which established the sale beyond question. The appellants admitted from the beginning that Father Tirso Tomacruz was a co-owner of the fishery in the same proportion, thus validating the transfer. On the issue of reimbursement for alleged expenses for improvements: The court held that the appellants were not entitled to reimbursement because the records showed they did not in good faith spend for improvements. The money obtained from mortgages on the entire property was constituted behind Father Tomacruz's back, without his knowledge or consent, despite his co-ownership. Furthermore, even if they were entitled to reimbursement, Father Tomacruz had already contributed his proportionate share by returning P3,225.84 to the appellee, deducted from the P18,000 sale price of his share. On the issue of the right of legal redemption: The appellants were denied the exercise of the right of legal redemption because they invoked it too late. The sale by Father Tomacruz to the appellee was recorded on December 4, 1929. According to Article 1524 of the Civil Code, the period for legal redemption is nine days. The appellants only invoked this right on February 22, 1931, long after the lapse of the prescribed period, thus losing their right. On the contention regarding the exact price for legal redemption: The appellants argued that the price was P14,774.16 because P3,225.84 was returned, and the redemption period should start from notification of the exact price. The Court found this reasoning fallacious. The price was P18,000. The sum returned was due to the appellants' actions of mortgaging the entire property twice without the co-owner's consent, which placed Father Tomacruz in an embarrassing situation and necessitated reimbursement to the appellee for one-half of the existing liens on the sold share. Thus, the appellants were responsible for the reduction in the sale price. On the subsequent orders regarding partition commissioners and prohibition to sell fish: The partition applied for was in order, necessitating the appointment of capable commissioners. The majority of the commissioners found a just and equitable division, allotting one part to each litigant, disproving the claim that the fishery was not susceptible of division. The court did not err in approving this report, as it was the most convenient, just, and equitable. The prohibition to sell fish without court permission was a necessary measure to safeguard the rights of both parties, ensuring an accounting of the fishery's products for proper adjudication of shares and avoiding further litigation.
Main Doctrine
The registration of a deed of sale on the corresponding certificate of title is a necessary requisite for the transfer of ownership and for the computation of the period for legal redemption. A co-owner who mortgages the entire property without the consent of the other co-owner is responsible for the consequences, including the reduction of the sale price due to existing liens.