[ G.R. No. 1244. April 22, 1904 ] 4 Phil. 33
[ G.R. No. 1244. April 22, 1904 ]
THE COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MIGUEL TOPIÑO ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
ARELLANO, C.J.:
The object of the complaint is the recovery of possession of certain parcels of land in the possession of the defendants and the ejectment of the latter, together with the sum of 9,000 pesos as damages and the costs of suit. In support of the complaint documentary evidence and oral testimony have been introduced.
That the parcels of land sued for are within the perimeter of the hacienda of San Luis y La Concepcion is one of the findings of fact included by the judge in his decision and against which we have not found in the course of our revision of the evidence anything to show the same erroneous. On the contrary, the correctness of this finding must have been recognized by the defendants, as their defense could not be taken into consideration except upon this assumption. The evidence introduced by the defendants in support of the alleged ownership attributed to Joaquin Guzman is adverse to their contention, because it shows that the area of that property is much less than that of the parcels of land sued for. With respect to the property alleged to belong to Manuel Dalanidao, all the documents offered have failed to show either the situation or area. This contention was made solely in opposition to the ownership alleged by the complaint, the defendants not having opposed the ownership alleged in the complaint by any right inherent in themselves. If they were merely tenants of the lands in question, holding under some other person whom they supposed to be the owner, they were not proper parties defendant, and this was a defense which they should have made at the trial.
The defendants did not present any title deeds, nor did they prove an adverse possession on their own behalf sufficient to overcome the recorded title deeds which the plaintiff presented in support of the complaint.
After the inscription of title deeds in the register of property, the only owner of the recorded property is the one who appears as such on the books of the register until the record is canceled by a final judgment There is no reason for ordering the cancellation of the inscription unless this relief is prayed for and proof is made of a better right on the part of some other person who claims to be the lawful owner or possessor. In this case there has been no demand for the cancellation of the inscription in the registry of the hacienda of San Luis y La Concepcion in favor of the Compania General de Tabacos. It has been alleged that the inscription is defective, but no person entitled to maintain an action for the purpose has instituted proceedings for the cancellation of that inscription.
As long as the inscription subsists it must produce all its effects.
To allege the nullity of the original title deeds executed by the Spanish Government in favor of the original grantees of the lands in question] is to allege the nullity of the contract entered into between the Spanish Government as grantor and them as vendees, for the titles are simply evidenciary of the sale for a certain consideration of a specific thing. Under the provisions of article 1302 of the Civil Code, the action for the annulment of contracts can only be maintained by those who are bound, either principally or subsidiarily, by virtue thereof. The defendants not being persons bound either principally or subsidiarily by virtue of that contract of sale between the Spanish Government and those original grantees they can not maintain the action of nullity of which they seek to avail themselves as a defense in this suit. And it is logical that it should be so. The nullity of an obligation being declared, the contracting parties must reciprocally restore the things which have been the object of the contract. (Art. 1303.) If the nullity of the title deeds referred to should be declared in conformity with the contention of the defendants, the lands should be restored to the Spanish Government and the price paid for them should be restored by that Government to the original grantees or their successors. It would follow that the lands in question could not remain in the possession of the defendants, because they would have to be restored to the vendor, nor could the latter be compelled to restore the price, not having had an opportunity to be heard in this suit
We therefore affirm the judgment appealed, with the costs of this instance to the appellants. So ordered.
Torres and Mapa, JJ., concur.