G.R. No. L-30421




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-30421 August 28, 1929 THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, applicant, vs. AGUSTIN JAVIER, claimant-appellant. CORNELIA HECHANOVA, claimant-appellee. Hilado and Hilado and Jose Yulo for appellant. Rodolfo A. Medel and Pedro R. Davila for appellee. STATEMENT This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros in cadastral case No. 25, G. L. R. O. Record No. 197, in which that court decided that lots Nos. 376, 483, 487, 491, and 579 were the property of, and should be registered in the name of, Catalino Hechanova and Vicenta Guriesa. Agustin Javier claimed that he was the owner of an undivided one-half interest in the lots, and on appeal assigns the following errors: I. The court erred in not holding that the one-half undivided portion of the lots in question which pertained to have been sold by him to the appellant, and in not adjudicating the said portion, with its improvements, to the latter. II. The court likewise erred in adjudicating the said lots, with their improvements, entirely to the heirs of the deceased spouse Catalino Hechanova and Vicenta Guriesa. III. The trial court finally erred in denying appellant's motion for new trial. JOHNS, J.: It is but fair to say that opposing counsel have submitted able and exhaustive briefs. In the final analysis, the real question involved is the legal force and effect of what is known in the record as Exhibit B, which purports to be a deed by Catalino Hechanova to Javier for an undivided one-half interest in the lots for a consideration of P2,000. The lower court held that the deeds was null and void and without consideration; that the money was never paid. That is purely a question of fact, and hence the findings of the trial court are entitled to weight. Upon that point there is a sharp conflict in the evidence. Both Javier and the notary, who prepared the deed positively testified that P1,000 was paid to Catalino Hechanova in the office of the notary at the time the deed was executed, and there is evidence tending to show that the remaining P1,000 was paid to him prior to his death. We are clearly of the opinion that the P2,000 was paid to, and that he executed the deed in question. It also appears that at the time Catalino Hechanova was an old man and nearly blind, and that he executed the deed with a thumb mark, for the reason that he was not able to write his name. That Javier is his son-in-law and employed a notary to prepare the deed. The deed was executed on April 15, 1919, and the appellee claims that it appears from the sworn affidavit of Javier in his application to approve his title, that the lots in question are assessed at P69,210. From an examination of those affidavits, it is extremely doubtful if they will bear that construction. Be that as it may, it is apparent from the record that in March, 1921, the lots ranged from P20,000 to P30,000, the one-half of which would be P10,000 or P15,000. There is also a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether or not Javier ever took possession of the property or claimed to own it until after the death of Catalino Hechanova. The evidence for the appellee is clear and positive that he never did take possession and that she never knew of the execution of the deed until Javier filed his proof of claim in the land registration case in March, 1921, and that from the execution of the deed in April, 1919, he never claimed or asserted any right to or shared in the fruits, rents and profits of the land. as stated, we are clearly of the opinion that Javier paid to Catalino Hechanova P2,000, as he contends, which is the consideration named in the deed. we are also of the opinion that the consideration for the deed is grossly inadequate and that Catalino Hechanova never intended to convey an absolute title to the land for P2,000. The fact that he was an old man; that he was nearly blind; that Agustin Javier was his son-in-law; and that the consideration was grossly inadequate all tend to show that Javier drove an unconscionable bargain in obtaining the deed. Owing to the relations existing between them and the age of the old man and his want of eyesight, it devolved upon Javier to be fair and just rather than overreach him. In other words, we are clearly of the opinion that it was never the purpose or intent of Catalino Hechanova to make an absolute conveyance to Javier of the lots in question for a new consideration of P2,000, and that the deed, known in the record as Exhibit B, cannot be sustained as a conveyance of the legal title to Javier of the lots in question. In that respect, but for the different reasons, the judgment of the lower court, decreeing the registration of the lots in question in the names of Catalino Hechanova and Vicenta Guriesa, is affirmed. Javier having paid the P2,000, we are also clearly of the opinion that he is entitled to, and should have, a preferred lien on an undivided half of the lots in question for that amount dating from the date of the execution of the deed, with interest thereon from that date at the rate of 6 per cent per annum until paid, which preferred lien on such half interest shall be noted on such certificate of title of Catalino Hechanova and Vicenta Guriesa. For failure to pay such lien with accrued interest within ninety days after this judgment becomes final, Javier shall have the right to enforce it in an appropriate proceeding and to have such interest sold and the proceeds of sale applied to the satisfaction of his preferred lien. The judgment of the lower court as to the registration of the title of the lots in question in the names of Catalino Hechanova and Vicenta Guriesa, in that respect, is affirmed, but Agustin Javier is hereby decreed a preferred lien in his favor on an undivided one-half interest on the lots in question for the sum of P2,000 dating from April 15, 1919, together with interest thereon from that date at the rate of 6 per cent per annum until paid, which preferred lien with such interest shall be noted on the title of Catalino Hechanova and Vicenta Guriesa. Neither party to recover costs on this appeal. So ordered. Avancena, C.J., Johnson, Street, Villamor, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation