Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 45742. April 12, 1939. ]

TIBURCIO MAMUYAC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. PEDRO ABENA (alias INDONG), Respondent-Appellee.

Nicanor Tavora for Petitioner.

Pedro C. Quinto for Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. COURT OF APPEALS; REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND DECREES OF. — The first assignment of error of the petitioner and appellant challenges the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals. This cannot be done. "Review of judgments and decrees of the Court of Appeals is limited to ’cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved.’ (Sec. 2, Commonwealth Act No. 3, amending sec. 138 of the Administrative Code, in relation to sec. 2, Art. VIII, Constitution of the Philippines.) (Mateo v. Collector of Customs and Court of Appeals [1936], 35 Off. Gaz., 915.)

2. MORTGAGE; PUBLIC DOCUMENT NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE A MORTGAGE; PRIVATE DOCUMENT NOT SUFFICIENT. — In order that a mortgage may be deemed to be legally constituted, it is indispensable that the instrument in which it appears be a public document and be recorded in the property register. Therefore, a mortgage in legal form is not constituted by a private document. Even if the court were to accord validity to the mortgage, Exhibit B, article 1473 of the Civil Code, invoked, applies only to the determination of preference between sale and sale and the same cannot be availed of in case of conflict between a sale and a mortgage.

3. ID.; POSSESSION OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY. — Even if the court were to accept the contention of the petitioner and appellant that he had been in possession of said properties by reason of the alleged contract of mortgage executed in his favor, on January 4, 1925, and were to accord legal effect to the document of sale of January 27, 1927, which was not recorded in the registry of property, still his right cannot prevail over that of A who had duly registered his deed of sale.

4. ID.; ID.; DELIVERY OF REALTY SOLD. — The contention of the appellant that respondent’s ownership and preference over the property in question are not complete because of lack of material delivery of the possession to him by the vendor is not well taken, for the reason that the execution of the public document of sale in favor of the respondent-appellee is equivalent to the delivery of the realty sold.


D E C I S I O N


LAUREL, J.:


This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on July 30, 1937 in CA-G. R. No. 43446.

Gregoria Pimentel was the owner of two parcels of land which she sold and conveyed on June 1, 1926, to Pedro Abena, the respondent-appellee herein. On January 27, 1927, Gregoria Pimentel again sold and conveyed the same parcels to Tiburcio Mamuyac, the petitioner-appellant herein. The document of sale, Exhibit 1, in favor of Abena was duly inscribed in the registry of property of the province on January 31, 1927, and from April, 1927, said parcels of land were declared for taxation in the name of said Abena. The document executed in favor of the petitioner on January 27, 1927, was neither inscribed in the registry of property nor were the parcels of land declared for taxation in the name of the latter.

To determine the conflict, petitioner-appellant instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of La Union against the respondent-appellee for the recovery of the two controverted parcels of land. After hearing, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, respondent-appellee here. From this judgment, the petitioner-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals. This latter court, with one member dissenting, affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance of La Union. The dispositive part of the majority decision of the appellate court is:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"De cualquier modo que se considere la cuestion, ya bajo la teoria de la parte demandante sobre la posesion, ya bajo el articulo 1473 del Codigo Civil que tiene exacta aplicacion al caso de autos, el Juzgado no incurrio en ningun error al dictar sentencia a favor del demandado, la cual confirmamos en todas sus partes, con las costas en esta instancia al apelante."cralaw virtua1aw library

Plaintiff, petitioner-appellant here, elevated the case to this court by writ of certiorari as adverted to in the beginning of this opinion.

The first assignment of error of the petitioner-appellant challenges the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals. This cannot be done.

"The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought to it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing and revising the errors of law incurred by the latter, the findings of fact of said Court of Appeals being final as to the former." (Guico v. Mayuga and Heirs of Mayuga [1936], 35 Off. Gaz., 861.)

"Review of judgments and decrees of the Court of Appeals is limited to ’cases in which only errors or questions of law are involved.’ (Sec. 2, Commonwealth Act No. 3, amending section 138 of the Administrative Code, in relation to sec. 2, Art. VIII, Constitution of the Philippines.)" (Mateo v. Collector of Customs and Court of Appeals [1936], 35 Off. Gaz., 915.)

The petitioner-appellant under his second and third assignments of error contends that he has a better right over the two parcels of land involved because of possession claimed by him in virtue of an alleged private contract of mortgage executed in his favor on January 4, 1935 (Exhibit B.) It is sufficient answer to this contention that "in order that a mortgage may be deemed to be legally constituted, it is indispensable that the instrument in which it appears be a public document and be recorded in the property register. Therefore, a mortgage in legal form was not constituted by the said private document." (Tuason v. Goduco, 23 Phil., 342, 347.) Even were we to accord validity to the mortgage, Exhibit B, article 1473 of the Civil Code, invoked by him, applies only to the determination of preference between sale and sale:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"El precepto que acaba de consignarse viene a determinar los casos de preferencia cuando una misma cosa hubiere sido vendida a dos o mas personas, casos de los que ya se ocupo la ley 15, tit. 32, lib. 3.
Top of Page