Home of ChanRobles Virtual Law Library



[G.R. No. 37046. September 19, 1933. ]

IÑIGO S. DAZA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FELISA TOMACRUZ and PABLO TANJUTCO, Defendants-Appellants.

J. Fernando Rodrigo and Felipe Arrienda Jose, for Appellants.

Guillermo Romero, for Appellee.


1. LEGAL REDEMPTION; PRESCRIPTION OF THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE THE SAME. — The appellants were denied the right to exercise the legal redemption invoked by them in their cross-complaint on the ground that they made use of said right too late. In accordance with article 1524 of the Civil Code, which fixes a period of nine (9) days within which the right of legal redemption can be exercised, it is evident that the appellants lost such right due to the lapse of the aforesaid period. (Sempio v. Del Rosario, 44 Phil., 1.)

2. PARTITION OF PROPERTY; APPOINTMENT OF PARTITION COMMISSIONERS. — The appellants contend that the division of the fishery should have been made in the manner proposed by them. The fact that the rejected that proposition does not necessarily mean that it committed an error, especially when the partition recommended by the majority of the partition commissioners and approved by the court was the most convenient, just and equitable.



The plaintiff herein brought this action in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan for the partition of a parcel of land and the improvements thereon described in certificate of title No. 3411, to obtain damages from the defendants herein, and to compel them to render an accounting of their administration of the property in question, consisting in a fishery.

The defendants appealed from the judgment ordering the petition of the property in question; from the order appointing partition commissioners; and from the order approving the report submitted by the majority of said commissioners and adjudicating to each party in his corresponding share thereof. They likewise appealed from the order prohibiting them from taking and selling fish from the fishery in question without first obtaining permission of the court.

The facts established by the evidence are stated in the opinion of the trial court as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"It is an established fact that the property described in the complaint is the same designated as No. 3 in certificate of title No. 3411 (Exhibit C) issued in the name of Felisa Tomacruz on October 1, 1927, in spite of the fact that this same property belongs not only to her but also to her brother, the Rev. Father Tirso Tomacruz. Felisa mortgaged the property for the first time on October 24, 1927, to the Philippine National Bank to secure the payment of a loan of P7,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. In none of the above-mentioned transactions, that is, the registration and the mortgage of the land in question, did her brother and co
Top of Page