Court Case Study
The object of the dispute in this case is a parcel of land originally owned by Adrian Syrians who died intestate in 1947. Heirs of Adrian Syrians leased the property to spouses David De Vera and Consumes Villains on June 30, 1967, for a period of fifteen (15) years beginning July 1, 1967.
On the contract of lease, paragraph 5, provided that Roman Syrians, one of the children of the late Adrian, will be the caretaker of the property during the period of the lease. During the effectively of the lease contract, the heirs of Adrian Syrians entered into an extrajudicial settlement of his estate.
On January 1 1, 1968, the property was divided into two (2) lots, Lot No. 60052 and Lot No. 8459.
The Lot No. 60052 (Lot 1) was assigned to Lourdes, Candida and the heirs of Dionysian while the Lot No. 8459 (Lot 2) was assigned to Francisco, Library, Allocated and Roman. The new owners of Lot No. 60052 sold the portions assigned to them to spouses Brillion and Aqualung Balls. As well as, the new owners of Lot 8459, except Roman, sold their shares to the Balls spouses.
On March 14, 1968, the De Vera spouses ousted Roman as caretaker and appointed Asides Oversea and Vidal Oversea s his substitutes.
Thereafter, Roman filed a case for reinstatement and relaxation against the De Vera spouses. On September 30, 1969, the Agrarian Court rendered a decision authorizing the ejecting of Roman. On appeal, the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals. However, before it was executed, the parties entered into a post-decisional agreement wherein the De Vera spouses allowed Roman Syrians to sub-lease the property until the termination of the original lease on June 30 1982.
This agreement was approved by the CAR court in an order dated December 22, 1972.
On August 16, 1976, the Balls spouses filed with the then Court of First Instance of Panamanian at Lineages an application for registration of title. The application claimed ownership of the entire lot No. 60052 and 3/4 pro-indigos of Lot No. 8459.
The Director of Lands and Roman Syrians filed separate oppositions to the application. The latter’s opposition alleged that the two (2) lots subject of the application have not yet been subdivided and remained as one parcel: that he Is the co-owner pro-indigos of the combined area of the two (2) lots and not just to one- Ruth (1/4) of Lot No. 459 as alleged in the application; and that the applicant’s source of ownership is avoidable. The Republic subsequently conceded that the land applied for was private and disposable. The ROTC, acting as a Land Registration Court, granted the application for Registration. On April 13, 1 983, after the expiration of the original lease and the sub-lease In favor of Roman Syrians, the Balls spouses filed a case for unlawful detained against Roman Syrians.
This case, however, was dismissed on motion of the complainants, Balls spouses. For their part, Allocated, Library, Roman, Francisco, Lourdes, Candida and the heirs of Dionysian, filed a complaint to annul the deeds of sale they executed in favor of the Balls spouses or should the deeds be not annulled, to allow Roman, Allocated and Library to redeem those shares sold by Candled, Lourdes, Franciscan and the heirs of Dallas and to uphold Roman corollas possession AT ten Tallapoosa portion AT ten property as a tenant- caretaker.
After the dismissal of the case for unlawful detained, the Balls spouses a motion for execution of the post-decisional order embodying the agreement of Roman Syrians and the De Vera spouses allowing the former to sublease the property. Issue: Whether or not a motion for execution of a post decisional agreement approved by the court in 1972 may still be filed eleven (11) years after. Decision: No. It should be noted that the meat of the post decisional agreement sought to be executed was the creation of a sub- lesson and sub-lessee relationship between the De Versa and Roman Syrians.
While it appears from the above resolution of the trial court that there was a basis for private respondents’ demand for reasonable compensation for the use of the premises and for Joint possession as co-owner, the filing of a motion for execution of the post decisional agreement between the De Vera spouses and the petitioners predecessor, Roman Syrians, was not the proper remedy. The pleading filed with the trial court was captioned “Motion for Execution. However, it was very clear that, under the circumstances they were in, the relief demanded by the private respondents can properly be asked for in an unlawful detained case or in other proper proceedings. A case for unlawful detained was already brought by the private respondents against the petitioner but the former ought its dismissal for reasons not known. Be that as it may, there is still a pending civil action between the parties (Civil Case No. 15958) where possession is one of the issues to be resolved.
The agrarian court erred in not dismissing outright the motion for execution filed by private respondents.
Said court, acting on the motion for execution had no jurisdiction to entertain propositions outside of the scope of the agreement sought to be executed. Further, the agreement sought to be enforced was approved by the court on December 22, 1972, eleven (11) years and eight (8) months from the time the action for execution was filed on August 22, 1984. It is settled that under Section 6, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, execution of a Judgment (or a final order) may be made by motion within five (5) years from the date it becomes final and executors.
After the lapse of such time, and before it is barred by the statute of limitations, a Judgment may be enforced only by an ordinary action.
Actions upon a Judgment or a final order of the court must be brought within ten (10) years from the time the right of action accrues [(Article 1144 (3)] or within ten years counted from the time the Judgment became final. Furthermore, it is indubitable that the agreement sought to be executed had already been executed by the parties. The obligations of spouses De Vera, the original lessees, and of Roman Syrians, under sub-lease agreement had already been complied with.
Possession and rentals under the contracts were already delivered. In fact, at the time the motion for execution was filed the sub-lease contract had already expired.
Hence, there was nothing more to execute. Petition granted. Motion for execution denied. MONITOR VS.. SALAD The object of the dispute in this case is the four parcels of land, which is also the deject matter AT case No.
4/61, In ten name AT Pedro Montreal, Tanat Is student to mortgage for the sum of UP,500 in favor of Virginia Salad y Sauna. On June 27, 1908, Pedro Monitor requested, in case No. 767, inscription in the property registry, in accordance with law, of four parcels of land situated in the barrio of Bandaging, of the pueblo of Lillo, Laguna, the respective situation, boundaries, and area of which land were set forth in the written application, in conformity with the technical description and plan accompanying the same, which estate belonged to him absolutely, and at the last assessment was appraised at $960 United States currency, having been acquired by him through inheritance from his parents, Eastern Monitor and Scoter Consul; that there was no encumbrance thereon, or any person who had any right or share therein, except that had sold it under pact De retro to Bonito Xavier. On April 27, 1908, Pedro Monitor, in representation of his wife, Severe Opponent, applied, in case No. 4768, for the registration of a parcel of land situated in the barrio of Bandaging, of the pueblo of Lillo, and also five other parcels of land in
Cabana, of the pueblo of Angelical, Laguna, the location, boundaries and are of which, respectively, are set forth detail in the written application, in conformity with the technical description and plans thereto attached, that these parcels had been at the last assessment appraised at $830 United States currency, and had been acquired by her inheritance from her mother, Similar Artist; that there was no encumbrance thereon, or any person who had any right or share therein, except that she has sold them under pact De retro to Bonito Xavier. Xavier opposed the foregoing applications in both cases, wherefore the Judge of the land court refused the registrations requested; but inasmuch as the applicant spouses afterwards repurchased the said parcels of land, the opponent, Bonito Xavier, withdrew his opposition and asked that titles be issued to the applicants as they had requested.
At this stage of the proceedings, counsel for Virginia Salad, by writings of October 28, 1910, presented in the two aforesaid cases, set forth that this client had acquired by purchase from the spouses Pedro Monitor and Severe Opponent the ten parcels of and, inscription whereof was requested in both cases, and his petition was accompanied by the nutriments of title, consisting of a deed of sale executed by the said spouses on October 25, 1910, in behalf of the petitioner, Virginia Salad, and ratified before a notary public; wherefore he asked for inscription of the lands in the name of Virginia Salad, and issuance to her of the corresponding title; and in connection with this petition, the court ordered, On November 17, that the petitioner, Monitor, and the opponent, Xavier state before the same, on the morning of December 20, 1910, with the lands concerned should not be registered in the name of Virginia Salad, as she requested, further providing that should they fail to appear on the day, and at the hour and place specified, they would be declared in general default, Virginia Galoot’s application would be granted, and they would be forever stopped from impugning the same and the decree that would be issued.
On December 22, 1910, the single Judgment aforementioned was rendered in both cases and, in view of the exception entered by counsel for Virginia Salad and of his action for rehearing, the court en banc on April 28 decided the opponent’s claim by a single ruling in both case from which decisions an exception was taken, and the corresponding bills of exception were presented for the two cases, approved, and Toward to ten clerk AT tans court. Issue #1 winner or not ten registration Apple by Pedro Monitor and Severe Opponent should be granted after they sold the land with a right to repurchase. Decision : Yes. Where the statute so provides, one who has sold land with a right to repurchase may register his property right therein.
When these two persons applied to the Court of Land Registration for the registration of their respective estates, eight parcels of the said land had been sold under pact De retro to Bonito Xavier. Inconsequently duly opposed the registration sought; but as soon as the land had been repurchased and Bonito had received the greater part of the money, UP,500 which the applicants had obtained from Virginia Salad, he withdrew his opposition and even asked that the titles be issued to the said spouses; and when it was thought that the case would be continued in the Court of Land Registration, Virginia Salad appeared to oppose the registration requested, alleging that she was the owner of the land and asking that title thereto be issued in her name. Issue #2: Whether the said parcels of land really were or were not sold by the applicant spouses to the opponent, Virginia Salad, what the conditions and nature of the sale were, in order to decide whether it is proper to register the property in question in the names of the said Pedro Monitor and Severe Opponent, respectively.
Decision #2: It is an unquestionable fact that Virginia Salad, upon furnishing to the spouses Opponent and Monitor the money needed by them for the repurchase of the and sold to Bonito Xavier, required spouses to execute in her behalf two instruments on the same date, October 25, 1910. In one of them, entitled an absolute, the spouses Pedro Monitor and Severe Opponent declare that they sell and convey forever to Virginia Salad and to her successors in interest, in consideration of the sum of UP,700, the ten parcels of land mentioned, repurchased from Bonito Xavier.
In other instrument, entitled a conditional sale, Virginia Salad, as owner of the said ten parcels of land, binds herself to sell them to the said spouses, Monitor and
Opponent, in accordance with the agreement made with these latter, within the period comprised between July 1 and December 31, 1925; and that should the said period elapse without these spouses having exercised their right, they would lose all right of action derived from the present agreement; that the said ten parcels of land should be sold without division; that the price should be the sum of UP,700, the value of all the improvements and crops on the land on the day of the sale, according to expert appraisal and the amount of all the necessary and needful expenses, including accumulation; that, in case the owner should need to sell the said lands, she would have to record the agreement to insure respect for the rights of the spouse Monitor and Opponent; and that, after the lapse of six months from the date of the instrument, October 25, 1910, the said spouses might negotiate with Virginia Salad in regard to the sale and to the right conceded them under the agreement.
In order to estimate and definite the character, nature, and conditions of the two contracts contained in either instrument, as well as to determine the intention of the interaction parties In executing teem, ten stipulations made Dye tense parties In Don documents, which must be held one single contract by and between the same parties regarding the conveyance of the ten parcels of land under the conditions of the sale, must explained and weighed together. Said contracts cannot be viewed as separate and independent, for they constitute a single contract of sale with the engagement to resell the land, the subject matter of the stipulations, with the term, in the manner and under the conditions set forth in one of said instruments. The private document f December 1, 1910, presented at the trial and not impugned as false, virtually completes the contents of the two instruments executed on the same date by and between the applicants, Monitor and Opponent, and Virginia Salad, who furnished the money wherewith to repurchase from Bonito Xavier of the ten parcels of land in question.
The Court of Land Registration en banc, composed four Judges, after consideration of the contents of both instruments, with due regard of the spirit and terms of the contracts, of the manifest intention of the contracting parties, as disclosed by the iterate text of both documents, and also of the statements made under oath by Pedro Monitor, not denied or rebutted at the hearing by either Virginia Salad and her attorney, who was the very notary the authenticated the said two instruments and interpreted their contents to the contracting spouses, who did not know understand Spanish, held that the contract made by and between the parties who executed the aforementioned two instruments, drawn up the same date, was one of sale with pact De retro, and that the stipulation with respect to the excess of the term of en years fixed for the repurchase of the said ten parcels of land was null and void, inasmuch as, pursuant to article 1508 of the Civil Code, in case of an express agreement the period shall not exceed ten years. Under the aforementioned hypothesis that the conveyance in question was affected under pact De retro it must be determined whether the two spouses who, according to the said instruments, sold the ten parcels of land on litigation are entitled to apply for registration thereof in their names, once the applicants’ ownership of the parcels has been unquestionably established.
