[ G. R. No. 42276. January 02, 1936 ] 62 Phil. 771
[ G. R. No. 42276. January 02, 1936 ]
VALERIANO REYES ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. MATIAS RODRIGUEZ ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. D E C I S I O N
IMPERIAL, J.:
The plaintiffs, half brothers of the defendants, brought this action to compel the latter to partition various parcels of land situated in the Province of Misamis as well as the cattle and carabaos, and to render an accounting of their administration and of the products of said properties from the year 1910. It was alleged in the complaint that the plaintiffs are co-owners with the defendants of the real property and cattle and carabaos described therein in the following proportion : 23.80 per cent for each of the plaintiffs and 7.15 per cent for each of the defendants; and that the defend- ants, particularly Matias L. Rodriguez, administered all the properties from the year 1910, without rendering an accounting to the plaintiffs or delivering them their participations therein. By way of relief, the plaintiffs prayed that a partition be made of all the properties and that the defendants render an accounting of their administration, delivering to them their participations in the products, in the proportion above-stated. In their answer, the defendants entered a general and specific denial of all the allegations of the complaint. In the course of the case, the parties stipulated that the plaintiffs reserved, for a later date, their right to and the action prosecuted by them, as the third cause of their complaint, for the rendition of accounts by the defendants. At the trial, the plaintiffs presented no evidence in support of their second cause of action referring to the cattle and carabaos, waiving it. For this reason the court made no pronouncement in this decision regarding said points. The defendants appealed from the judgment ordering the partition of the 26 parcels of land, to which the 55 parcels described in the complaint were reduced, as follows: Parcel No. 1, the portion of 8 hectares, 12 ares and 50 centiares of parcel No. 2, parcel No. 12 and parcel No. 31, into two equal parts, one of which is for the three plaintiffs, share and share alike, and the other part for the plaintiffs and the defendants, also share and share alike; parcel No. 38 into two equal parts, one part for the defendants, share and share alike, and the other part for the plaintiffs and defendants, also share and share alike; the remaining portion of 65 hectares, 40 ares and 38 centiares of parcel No. 2 and all the other remaining parcels into seven (7) equal parts, one part for each of the plaintiffs and defendants. The judgment provided that should the parties fail to agree on the division of the property as therein indicated, the court, in accordance with the law, would appoint commissioners to make the decreed partition, with the costs and the other incidental expenses prorated among all the co-heirs. Clodualdo Rodriguez and Encarnacion de Lara lived as husband and wife for many years and had children, the defendants Rita, Matias, Romualdo and Romulo. Clodualdo Rodriguez died in 1886. On January 3, 1888, the widow Encarnacion de Lara contracted a second marriage with Jose Reyes in the town of Butuan, Misamis. The plaintiffs Valeriano, Jose and Tomas were born of this union. During the marriage of Jose Reyes and Encarnacion de Lara they acquired parcel No. 1, the portion of 8 hectares, 12 ares and 50 centiares of parcel No. 2, parcel No. 12 and parcel No. 31. Parcel No. 38 was acquired during the marriage of Encarnacion de Lara to Clodualdo Rodriguez. The portion of 65 hectares, 40 ares and 38 centiares of parcel No. 2, as well as all the other remaining parcels which are the subject matter of the complaint, was acquired by the defendants for the community property which then existed, with money from the products of the other lands administered by them. Jose Reyes died on June 8, 1901, and Encarnacion de Lara, on May 30, 1910. After the latter’s death and while the plaintiffs were under age, Matias Rodriguez and his other brothers of the same family name took over the administration of all the properties acquired during both marriages of their mother, without having delivered to the plaintiffs their participations in the fruits from said year 1910, except that they defrayed the expense for the education and studies of the plaintiffs. The defendants-appellants assign the following alleged errors as committed in the appealed judgment, to wit: In holding that parcels Nos. 1, 12 and 31, and the portion of 8 hectares, 12 ares and 50 centiares of parcel No. 2 should be divided into two equal parts, one of which belongs, share and share alike, to the plaintiffs-appellees as heirs of Jose Reyes, and the other part, also share and share alike, to said plaintiffs and the defendants as heirs of Encarnacion de Lara; in holding that the portion of 65 hectares, 40 ares and 38 centiares of parcel No. 2, as well as parcels Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 18, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 46, 47, 48 and 49, should be divided equally among the plaintiffs and the defendants; in admitting Exhibits E-1, E-2,E-3, F-1, K, and S, and in denying their motion for a new trial. According to Exhibits E-1, E-2 and E-3, parcel No. 1 is composed of real properties Nos. 15, 26 and 27 which were registered in the registry of deeds of the Province of Misamis, the first in the name of Encarnacion de Lara and the second and third in the name of Jose Rteyes Santa Maria, spouses and parents of the plaintiffs, during their marriage. According to said.documents, the lands were adjudicated by virtue of a gratuitous adjustment with the State, the titles thereto having been issued by Governor Juan Zanon as Deputy of the Director General of Civil Administration of the Philippines, on May 13, 1893, and registered on June 30th of said year, all in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Decree of August 31, 1888. The appellants contend that the lands composing parcel No. 1, known as Hacienda Minlagas, had been under cultivation many years prior to the registration thereof in the name of the spouses Reyes and De Lara, by Clodualdo Rodriguez and Gaspar de la Cruz who had formed a partnership engaged in agricultural development, as shown by Exhibits 1 and 1-A, and that at least from the year 1883, the lands in question had been in the possession of said partners who had dedicated them later in the cultivation of sugar cane. The evidence which we have carefully reviewed does not justify the contention of the appellants. While Exhibits 1 and 1-A refer to uncultivated lands of the State situated in Minlagas, they contain no description of any land. In view of this and of the absence of other convincing evidence, it cannot be concluded that said exhibits refer to the lands in question, real properties Nos. 15, 26 and 27 of Exhibits E-1, E-2 and E-3. If Clodualdo Rodriguez and Gaspar de la Cruz really cultivated and possessed parcel No. 1 of the complaint, as claimed by the appellants, there is no doubt that the State would not have permitted other persons to apply for it or issued free composition titles thereto, in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Decree of August 31, 1888, then in force. Lastly, granting that they were lands already cultivated and possessed by said persons, as they have not obtained any title thereto from the State, it is clear that they cannot invoke any right of ownership or question the titles legally issued. It is held, therefore, that the first assignment of error, in so far as it refers to parcel No. 1, is not well taken. Sometime later, upon considering the third assignment of error, we shall discuss the validity of the gratuitous composition titles. Parcel No. 12 of the complaint was likewise acquired during the marriage of Jose Reyes to Encarnacion de Lara. According to Exhibit K, this land was not registered in the name of anybody prior to the year 1897, but on April 17th of said year it was registered for the first time as real property No. 61 in the name of Jose Reyes, and in the record it was stated that it formed a part of the lands seized from said owner by virtue of a writ of execution issued by the judge of First Instance of Cagayan de Misamis. This evidence, together with the oral evidence presented, sufficiently shows that it is one of the properties acquired during the marriage of Jose Reyes to Encarnacion de Lara. Parcel No. 31 of the complaint was also acquired during the marriage of Jose Reyes to Encarnacion de Lara as evidenced by Exhibit S which shows that the land was adjudicated to said Jose Reyes by virtue of a gratuitous adjustment with the State on May 13, 1893, by Governor Juan Zanon as Deputy of the Director General of Civil Administration of the Philippines, in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Decree of August 31, 1888, the title so issued having been registered in the registry of deeds of the Province of Misamis on June 28, 1893. The portion of 8 hectares, 12 ares and 50 centiares of parcel No. 2 is another real property acquired by the spouses Jose Reyea and Encarnacion de Lara during their marriage, as evi- denced by Exhibit F-1 which shows that on May 13, 1893, Governor Juan Zanon, as Deputy of the Director General of Civil Administration of the Philippines, issued a gratuitous composition title to the land in favor of Jose Reyes Santa Maria, in accordance with the provisions of the Royal Decree of August 31, 1888, the title having been registered on July 1, 1893. In the face of so clear and convincing evidence, as that stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this court cannot agree with the appellants that said parcels of land had been acquired during the first marriage of Encarnacion de Lara to Clodualdo Rodriguez, and therefore, the first assignment of error is overruled. The portion of 65 hectares, 40 ares and 38 centiares of parcel No. 2, and the rest of the parcels of the complaint, are the subject matter of the second assignment of error. We cannot but agree with the court that, according to the documentary and oral evidence, all these lands, with the exception of parcel No. 38, were acquired by the sort of partnership formed by all the brothers and sisters and that Matias Rodriguez, as manager thereof, purchased the lands with funds from the other lands which were in his charge and under his administration, as the plaintiffs were then under age and studying. This court finds no error in the judgment providing for the division of these real properties equally among all the brothers and sisters, the plaintiffs and the defendants. With respect to parcel No. 38, it appears that it had been acquired during the marriage of Encarnacion de Lara to Clodualdo Rodriguez and it should be distributed in the manner provided in the judgment. The second assignment of error is likewise declared unfounded. When the appellees offered Exhibits E-1, E-2, E-3, F-1, K and S as part of their evidence, the appellants objected vigorously on the ground that they were irrelevant and impertinent. The court overruled the objection and correctly admitted the documents. This resolution gave rise to the third assignment of error. The appellants contend that the documents are inadmissible as evidence because they are mere copies of the records, and the original titles themselves were not presented. As already seen, the documents in question, with the exception of Exhibit K which will be discussed separately, are duly certified copies of records appearing in the books of the registry of deeds of the Province of Misamis, authenticated by the register of deeds. As certified copies of entries or records of public and official nature, they are also public and official documents and, as such, are admissible as evidence in accordance with the express provisions of sections 299, 313 (6) and 315 of the Code of Civil Procedure. They are prima facie evidence that the originals of the gratuitous composition titles with the State, covering the lands in litigation, were really issued by the competent authorities in favor of Jose Reyes’ and his wife Encarnacion de Lara, in conformity with the provisions of the Royal Decree of August 31, 1888, and that they were presented for registration and actually registered in accordance with the law. As the appellants failed to prove that said originals never existed, the legal presumption subsists and this court is bound to declare that the titles existed and were issued by the competent authorities in compliance with the laws then in force (sec. 334 [14, 31] of the Code of Civil Procedure). The appellants invoke the doctrine laid down by this court in the cases of E. Michael & Co. vs. Enriquez (33 Phil., 87), Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Martinez and Martinez (44 Phil., 817), and Rodriguez vs. Tan Yeo Sing (G. R. No. 25972, promulgated Dec. 14, 1926, not reported), holding that the original documents must always be presented and that secondary evidence thereof are inadmissible until after their existence and loss have been proven. The facts disputed in said cases completely differ from those involved in the present case. In those cases the existence of the documents evidencing the contracts had been denied and naturally the originals or the duplicates thereof had to be presented in accordance with section 321 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and as this requirement had not been complied with it was held that before secondary evidence of the contents of the documents may be admitted, it is necessary to prove the existence and loss thereof and that the entries of such private documents in the public or official registries do not cure the defect or convert them into admissible evidence. The doctrine so established is not applicable to the case under consideration not only because of the foregoing reasons but also because in the case of composition titles, they necessarily had to exist and be acted upon in accordance with the Royal Decree of August 31, 1888 and, under article 15 thereof, their entry in the registry of deeds was inevitable and obligatory. Referring to Exhibit K, this court is constrained to admit that it is not an entry of any title of ownership. However, it is clearly stated therein that the land described, which is parcel No. 12 of the complaint, had been judicially attached as the exclusive property of Jose Reyes Santa Maria and that it was finally registered as real property No. 61 in the books of the registry of deeds. In the absence of other evidence to the contrary, this authenticated copy of said entry stated and corroborated by the other oral evidence presented by the appellees sufficiently shows that this real property is one of those acquired during the marriage of Jose Reyes to Encarnacion de Lara and should be considered as conjugal property. This" court concludes, therefore, that the third assignment of error is not well founded and is likewise untenable. The fourth and last assignment of error is a corollary of the former ones and the appellants offer no new arguments in support thereof. This court deems it unnecessary to dwell upon said assignment. The appellants insinuate in their brief that they are entitled to credit for the improvements made .by them, consisting in the planting of from 4,500 to 6,000 coconut trees 5, 15 and 20 years old. Inasmuch as the parties have agreed to suspend, until a later date, the claim upon fruits of all the lands during the time they were administered by the defendants-appellants, and believing that the credit for improvements may properly be included in the action for rendition of accounts, this court decides that this question should likewise be reserved to the appellants for them to allege and claim when all the questions relative to the rendition of accounts will be determined. In view of all the foregoing considerations, the appealed judgment is affirmed, with the costs of this instance to the appellants. So ordered. Malcolm, Villa-Real, Butte, and Goddard, JJ., concur.