RECENT DECISIONS of the Philippine Supreme Court by xumiaomaio


									                                             Digest of
                            RECENT DECISIONS
                       of the Philippine Supreme Court
          th.~ column is presented a digest of current cases of general interest to prac-
            Thl: C decisions hn'vc not yet been published         in the Offici:l.l Gazette. and many
        • i   C'd.\lly tho::;e rendered in. dil:i.~ion.. will not so appear because not selected for
      I r port.]

      [AI, PR ICTICE-FAILURE             TO As-     on the ground of fraud, vario'us per-
      A        ERROR A FACT        IN    i\IOTION   sons filed motions for reopening the
       Ell' Tm.IL.-Yll     Kao C1.lan v.            proceedings, alleging that they were
      r«lil/a  et (fl., G. R. No. 3731,4,           the owners of various parcels of
        7, 10.JJ.-This is an appeal                 land included in the decree. One of
      po cd by the plaintiff in this                the grounds of relief was:          "That
     , from a decision of the Court                 your petitioner and his predecessors
   First Instance. In his assign-                   in interest were never served notice
  nt of errors plaintiff-appellant                  of the pendency of the application
  I d to include as one of the errors               of registratio'n of the applicant, Th
    mitted by the trial Court the                   Roman Catholic Archbishop of Ma-'
   t of having presented a motion                    nila, relative to these lands."      Thej
 r new trial and the denial thereof                  trial Court denied the petition fOl
    the Lower Court.                                 the reopening of the decree.
 llld:        The fact of not having                     The Supreme Court,        citing th
 II \\ld such proccdure has divested                 case of Grey Alba v. De la Cruz, 1
 . COllrt of jurisdiction to l'eview                 Phil. 49, Held:       "Where, as hap-
      evidence prcsented in the trial                pened in this case due publicatiol
  d we have to rely exclusively on                   was made and the registration         pro
      conclusions of facts reached by                ceedings were otherwise conducte
      Lower COllrt. The questions of                  according to law, the fact that
   t presented by the appeal not be-                 certain party interested in the Ian
       ubjeet to review, the judgment                 was not personally        served wit.
     ffirmcd. (In division, per Villa-                notice does not afford a ground fo
     1, J.; Hull, Imperial, JJ., con-                 ~'eopenjng the case on the ground 0
  r.)-By         AG.IPITO   F.   MANAS.
                                                      fraud."    It was further     held tha+
                                                      by the word "fraud" is meant actua
                                                      fraud or dishonesty of some sort
  L\"D         REGISTRATION-FRAUD            NEC-     Pl'oof of constructive    fraud is no
   IRY TO REOPEN            A LAND         REGIS-     sufficient to authorize the Court 0
  ITI!).· CASE FINALLY           ADJUDICATED.         Land Registration to open the cas
  R   Mf.DY OF PERSONS             NOT     SERVED     txJ modify its decree. In the case be
\ [TJ( PE!tSO:-iAL     NOTICE      AND THERE-         fore us, no specific facts are prove
 Y PREJUDICED          BY    THE        REGISTRA-     showing an intention on the part 0
 10.; OF\D.-The   Roman Catholic                  the applicant for registration    to de
  chbishop of Manila v. Mariano                       ceive or deprive any of the peti
T (/0 1'1 al., G. R. No. 35959, July                   tioners of their rights.
 ,10.],J. On June 12, 1929, a decree                      The remedy of appellants if the
  . i 'ued in favor of the applicant,                  have not been guilty of any neglig
     l~oll1anCatholic Archbishop of                    ence is against the assurance fun
    :la, in a land registration    pro-                under Sec. 101 of Act No. 496. (I
   lin    f, Within the period of one                  division, pel' Street, J.; Abad San
   r thcrtaflcr, allowed by law for                    tos, Vickers, JJ., concur.)-By      ACA
         l,c:pin~ of registration cases                PITO F. ARAK'\S.
     IL Pr..\CTICB-GRANTINC         Of'   A    trial Court, they appealed.     In this
      . TO SET ASIDE      A JUDGMENT           appeal, among other things, it is
      .IULT WITH TERMS-JUDICIAL                urged that the trial Court erred in
     :TlON.      Leon Nava1To v. Jose          permitting the exclusion of Fausto
         a,l, G. R. No. 38015, July 26,        Santos from prosecution in order to ;           I

          In this action for a sum of          make him a witness for the State.,
      y, a judgment          by default        It" is claimed that Fausto Santos
        t the defendant was granted            was the real culprit and that his
         lotion of the plaintiff.  There-     testimony was not essential for the.
      , the defendant presented           a   prosecution.    Held:     According to,
    . n to set aside the order of de-         the facts of the case in record, the
   It. This was granted              with     contention is groundless.      The evi-
       : 1. That the answer shall b~          dence shows that Fausto Santos was
      ntul on ;\larch 16, 1932. 2.            a mere laborer of defendant,        Es-
    t at the hour set for trial the           pana, who ordered him to meet his
      viII proceed should the defend-         co-defendants    and get the animals
    not have registered his answer.           from them.     It further   shows that
     an wer was registered in time            Espai'ia's complicity would not have
      ccol11panyingit was a petition          been established      were it not for
    c ntinuance. The petition was             Fausto Santos' testimony.      (In di-
  i d and the trial            proceeded.     vision, per Abad Santos, J.; Vick-
      lent was rendered for the               ers, Imperial,      JJ.,  concur.)-By
 . iff. On appeal the defendant               ACAPITO     F.    ARANAS.
      s in the first place that error
     cU1l1111itted denying the ap-
    nt's repeated motions for con-               PUBLIC         SERVICE-MEASURE           OF
                                              DAMAGES          IN    UNAUTHORIZED     TRIPS
     I.ce of the hearing, the LoweI'
                                              -POWER            OF     THE    COURT       OF
 rt, thereby abusing its discre-
                                              FIRST     INSTANCE         TO   GRANT      IN-
                                              JUNCTION.-RU1-al       T1'ansit Co., Ltd.
 H!lt!: In this connection it will
                                              "Us. Em'ilia   Flor, G. R. No. 3745,
   recalled that the defendant was
                                              July 24, 1933.-Both           parties    are
   d fault and that it was only
                                              engaged in transportation       by busses.
    ugh the consideration      of the
                                              The lines of the plaintiff and de-
. 1 court that the defendant's an-
                                              fendant meet in the municipality of
   r was received.       Under such
                                              San Jose, Nueva Ecija, and are con-
    itions, it behooved the defend-
                                              current up to' their terminals thru
 t to be unusually diligent, and we
                                              Bayombong, ·Cauayan, and Ilagan,
  not say that the trial        Judge
                                              Isabela. _However, plaintiff          is the
    ed his discretion in declining to
                                              only public service operator author-
   'nue the trial. (In division, per
                                              ized to pick up passengers           in th
  1 nll11,J.; lIull, Imperial, JJ ..
                                              route. Defendant-appellant         withou
  cur.)-By AGAPITO F. ARANA-S.
                                              authority,   made a number of trip
                                              carrying     passengers     and freigh
rr.nIINAL LA W--CIRCUl\1S1'ANCES              from San Jose to Ilagan and vic
\\"AnH,lNT THE DISMISSAL        OF Co-        versa. Plaintiff brought suit in th
 I EO TO BECO:>IE A STAT!,] WIT-              Court of Fil'st Instance of Manil,
 " -Po P. I. v. Liberato Espaiia,             praying for damages for the illega
  "/0 Santos,  et al., G. R. No.              and improper competition of the de
51, JlIly :26, 19.1J.-The deIend-             fendant, and praying for an injunc
    were prosecuted for qualified             tion forbidding the defendant Iron
 t. Upon their conviction by the              transporting    passengers     or freigh
          IH.'plaintiff \,ith-        ning with the month of July 19~32,
       t' Jl1from the Pub-            and       continuing     until      the   child
                     The relief       reaches the age of majority.            The at-
        1 .lyr<! for, hence           tempt of the defendant            is to defeat
        I Lv the defendant            recovery on the ground that he has
      l I, the lower court            lost his property, ancl that according-
             al O-Int of dam-          ly artic:les 117 and 152, number 2
         , ;act that plain-            of the Civil Code ~hol'lcl br< applied.
             to .3 ro\-e actual        II!'lel:    It is how.;ver, notable that
             the lo,,'er court         Exhibit "A" was executed after E';-
   . " th~ d fend ant as                11ibit "I", the latter        the document
            r,ril1lnrily \\'ithin       by mc::tllS of which the defendant
     . t 'e PU'Jlic Service             ceded his property          to La Yebana
  I rl: Where a wrong                   Inc.     It is further   notable that the
            it is not nec-              defendant       was able to pr.y the pen-
           he exact amount              sion corresponding         to h\'o month-
         1 absolute      certain-       and ::t part of another month.           Since
       ,'covery.        The trial        Exhibit     "A" \\'as executed         volun·
      in h l·in~·as a lneas-
                                         tarily by the defendant,           ancl sinc(
       . the amount that                 the chilel is reeogni~~ed as his anl
     '\ 'IS shown        to have         so can justly dem::tnd support.            (II
           h;s unauthorized              (livision of three, pel' MalcC'hl, J.
       rl (c,n cntion is \dth-           conel\lTing, Villa-Real and Inlpe1 i.'ll
            .; 1 court did not           JJ.) -IJl'iC'fcel  /;y S,~NTJ,\GO C. G,t;:
    r l' ,,'1'ce of the Com-            Gomo.
  i ly ~njoins the de-
      l    'lluing the \Vl'ong-               SuproTIT-B,\SIS      IN   QlmER     TlIA

             i, ns. This' 3 an          .\N     ACTiQN    ::IL\Y   Pl~OSPEr:.--Eli:(
         ; t' r Court of First          beth Rllbio v. Fil(,i1IO;l~ S,,,!to, G. J
        o r hnds.        (In clivi-     'So, .17.97',1,July fl.\, l!nJ.-Origina
 ,1 ' II Ill, J.; concut'-              ly two actio1'\s were begun on beha'
      1 ".d Impel'ial, JJ,)             of Eli7, beth Rubio to obtain SUj
      \ T! ~GO C. GREGOmo.               port from defendant           as his reco'
                                         nized illegitim.tte       dal1ghtel',        Bot
         . T 01' Ti,E Loss QF            actions     "'ere    djs111i~s{'d and UJlO
  ) Dr r:~T RECOVETIY.-                  ajlpc::>.l, Supreme Court directed tl
,) '/),1 (' • .f/)(lquin    Carrion,     tri<cl COUl't to set aside its onlel
    'i, .filly 2\, 191-7.-This           to hold a new hearing' ancl to rend,
 , 1l' 1 'lt on behalf of                judgment        in conformity         "ith    tJ
    1   \0    (';:rrion Nawase            la.w and evidence.         A ne '{ hradl
, , ,,' 'hts of the child as             was lwld and the e\'idence                 of tl
  i 1 lW terms of the do-                 plaintiff    cow;isting of mother's          tl
 j' it "A" (':;ccuted by the
                                          timony and certain           exhibits       W01
    '1'1c e:rfendant          admits      hOll'ever, rejected as incomp8lcnt
 I is i'~nature to the do-                accordance       with article     lH of t
l 1)'[ "A". The authen-                    Civil Code.      Again, the action IV
    t ,j(, 1111l'1'\tis aeconl-           dismis,'ed and phJ.intiff now appca
                                           [[elt/:   Articles 1:30, 110 and 1<11
 i 1 'It ",ron.           The trial
      ( tl'(' (lc'fendant to pay           the Civil Code are controlling'.            T
      tl' L 111 of .'l,:)00.00,            ri~;ht to support      is here not sho'
        . at  ()l   ney's -fcC's, Lo- by a final 6U1tence in a criminal
         r! nf)     !u'i+hly   L:'g;in~ ci.'il lH'fJccE.dinf;:::, 01' in an induL
. 'n;; l,:;cclItcd by the fa'th:r.                   l11ent r,ccordin;;·ly.      From such
~ I p"ohibils an inql'iry into                       n'ent,      the plaintiff        now appeaL
                                                     1I cld:       '1'here is no qllestion            th~
                                                     sl'ch auction resulted in a ~hocking
      1 ,'nl] 2 of article 110.                      ly inadcnuate          price of the articll                     I

      j J(1r.:e was, thel'(~fore,                    ~old. To prevent enrichment                    of th!
        "J'til';; COU:1sel [0" the                    plaintiff      and a conesponding                 in:
        III    <' ]yi:1g' into      the               poveri:,hment        of defEndant,          we at'
         i.y.        (Tn c1i\'ision of                con~trained        to hold that the tl'i~
            "In, J.; concurring,                      court \vas justined          in applying           tll
           I I1111erial, JJ.)-                        true ""lue of the automobile ratb:j
                1.\(;0  C. G:1Ji:G0:1 [Q.             than the fictitious value flxed at th
                                                      sheriff's      sale as the amount to
           ')RTC \(;E-b;,\DEQU,\-                     credited       on the main debt.                 Th
         : ,\ F~;mCI.OSURE           SAL1~.
                                                      right of the trial COlll't in its di
    l',-"cli,lrJ <':: Sl'pply Co, vs.                  cr~tion to reduce the attorney's                fe
, rl. I'. ,Vo .. 76.967, July     ;'J"                 is in accol'Clance with our long Ii ,
    'n jeL Jpdlant                 lJrought            of decisions.        (In division of tlll'c
                                                       1)('1' J lull, J.; concurring,           :i\Ialcoli
     C)\ t' a sum of money
      I      ,[u" as the balance on                    ~\l1d Villa-R()al,       JJ.)-IJl'icfCcl            ~

     . 111• t,tomolJile.             It was             SA~;1'IAr;O    C. GltEGORIO.
               I t)~l} mcnt of P218.75,
                                                      /   AD~II:,IST:1ATIVE            LAW-AIlSI':N
                  " ote of ,>1,760.00
                 d by a chattel mort-                 010'   Pm,SU"lPTIOi>I           1:'1     P llIL1PPI,
                                                      CO?-:ST.\BULAHY             OFF!C":R     TO .\CT       }
                       ,) obile.        A £lei'
                                                      DEPUTY       OF THE         DI!U:CTOP.    OF   PUBL
                     t; ()f interest and
                                                      WOP,KS.-P. I. J. liS. \'e(7(1sto [Jar
                 mil';        to    P 150.00,
                                                      let, G. R. No. J7CfJ,?, J/llU 10, 1[)-13.                  I
             Il"rt \, i'h the consnnt
                t Pl)"11 e, took vos-
                                                       Defendant          \vas convicted of u viol
                    'ltomobile,      \\'ith a          tion of th autombi!e Law, for dl'i!
                   ]csnre of the chat-                 ing his cx~toln0bile \yhile his drivel
                   Shortly the,'caner,                 licen~e \.as           under    sllspension,
                  \\'as sold at pnblie                 order of Lieute 1l'.nt Antonio
                                                                              1                         :'la
         I \, s bought in by he                         tineh of the Philippine               Constab
            'llant         I01'     PlOO,OO.            lm'y who claimed to be a deputy
           L i1~ was        sold by plain-              the Director of Public "\Yorks. Ql'
         ,t to one of its em-                           I :"Il: "\Vhether or not the suspen:5i
      . J,1 'iO.Oo, Plaiiltiff             also         of appellant's           license     was leg'
    . 'e, lIowance of 33 % r;.                          IJ cld:        The law crcates certain
       "ll"ll1a"CS and attorney's                       f1ce~ and as(,igns certain powers a
       "i(~ 1 in the chattel mort-                       duties to the incmnlJents.               The a
          trial court held that the                      thurity to sllspend a driver's licen
          '41W:s1y inadequate               and          is not incluc!ed in the g'('nel'al powe
        lid be highly unequitable                                       b
                                                         a,.;(.;i.(~"1edy law to cc)tlstabulal'Y
       I )     plaintiff        to make an               fjcers. It must Ill' proved that su
        " of Pl"l(i:1.'1.1 over and                      officer has becn c1".-i','nated as l
        liginal 6(;]Jing price which                   , ]Juty by the D;rcctor                of Pub
        .7). 'I'rial court t'l'ellitell                  'iYorks or that proof ot' his no
          ,ith just value of th()                         rioll~l~' (1eting ao; ~lleh officer nll
           ao Ihe time of. its re-                        b::. 5ho\\"n. 1n the instant             enSt',
        I! 'edllced attorney's              fee;.;        ::;ufflcit'nt pvid~l~l('e \ '1~ pl' .....;(\ltcd
            (J 1"2(;      and gave jntlg;-                ~~hu'\"h'lt Lil'l.h·n:~nt }In'~ti'~!'z\\
         ly acting' as a deputy of
          I                                     casuaL" It was proved that the ap_
     . dol' of Public Works. De-                pellant had not been employed be-
      t acquitted-(Division        of           forc by the appellee nor was ther
      I I' ,\bad Santos, .1.; Street,           any intention    shown to retain his
                                                services after this one incidental'
     ritkcr<, J.1., concurring.)--
                                                job was completed.       The business
        by J. GO:-:Z,\LES.
                                                of the company is to furnish elec-
                                                tric current.     Held: The plaintif
      ICF.- SUFFICIENT       U:-iDER     SEe-   can not recover.     The work he was
     2i       O~· THE   WORK~IEN'S      COM-    to assist in doing was a particular
         £0.'  LAw.-Lrl1crence     Scho-        and certain piece of work, which
        ;,rliff (wd ar~]Jellee vs. Ped1'0       both he and his employer           Ime'
     . & ('0., defendant,    and aPl>el-        would require      but a short      time •
 I   r;. U. ,\'0. ,)8790, July   22, 193J.      There was nothing in the contrac
                                                of employment nor in the relation
    tion for the recovery of dam-
                                                of these parties, then or prior tOj
     ad ing from the injury receiv-
                                                that time, shown by the evidence!
 by the plaintiff while working
                                                which would indicate that such em-
    he defendant as foreman.      The
                                                ployment was to be either continuou.
   n c was that the plaintiff did
                                                or recurring."      Consumer's    Mutua
t givc the notice prescribed       by            Oil Co. vs. Industrial    Commission
    Workmen's Compensation Act.                  24 NE 608. Affirmed.         (Per Hull
 d: Thc admitted fact that the                  .1.; Malcolm, Imperial,    .1J., concur
   ndant partly cared for the plain-             ring.)-Briefecl   by J. GONZALES.
   \ hile in the hospital would con-
   te a sufficient compliance with
                                                  RECONVENTION-WHEN           BARRED.
   notice requirement according to
                                                Leonardo Ga?nbito vs. BuenaventuTa,
  . n 21 of the Workmen's Com-
                                                Dayao   et a1., G. R. No. 37745, JU11
     tion Act.      Affirmed.    (Per
                                                27, 1933.-Action      to recover Pl,16
 11m, .1.; Villa-Real, Hull, .1.1.,
                                                paid by the plaintiff to the defend-
   U1ring.)-Briefed     by .1. GONZA-
                                                ant as purchase of a piece of land
                                                acquired by the defendant as home-
                                                stead.   In a previous action insti
     RK.IE:-;'S CO~IPENSATIO~          LAw-
                                                tuted by the herein defendant            t
 V.II.          E~IPLOY:lIENT-DA:\IAGES.
                                                annul the contract of sale, the tria
                                                court declared      the contract      null
     'on Sera,    plaintiff  and alJpe1-
                                                and void as contrary to the Publi
     s. [,',cell((Electl'ic Co., defend-
                                                Land Law. While in that action the
   l1,z rI)Jpellee, G. R. No. 38801,            def,ense of payment was interposed
 y ;;0, ID.J3.-Plaintiff      was hired
                                                by the herein plaintiff,    then defend
  the defendant company at the
                                                ant, the court in its judgment, di
'Iy wage of P1.00 to remove and
                                                not sentence the herein defendant
   ,Ii h an obsolete concrete tank
                                                then plaintiff, to retul'l1 the Pl,166
 I in its premises, while he was
                                                received by him. No appeal havin
   11"l'ing the chisel, a piece of
                                                been interposed, that judgment         be
 n lew off the end of the chisel
                                                came final.     Held: The defense in-
   cntl'ed his eye, causing the loss
   i ht in that eye.         Action for         terposed by the plaintiff       herein in
       ., under the 'Workmen's Com-             the previous case was substantially
      irn Law. Trial court denied               equivalent     to the "reconvention"
          of damage on the ground               required by section 97 of the Code
            l,'ployment was "purely             of Civil Procedul"f;; and the plain-
               aC1luiescedto the dcci-    annul a contr~ct of sale of an auto-
              appealing, has now lost     m.obile for hire.   When the defend-
              recover the amount paid     ant Ballesteros,   endeavored to per-
           Divisionof three, per Im-     fect the sale to the plaintiff, the au-
             .lalcolm and lIull, JJ.,    tomobil was registered     in the name
           .)-lJi'iefed by E. J. A.      of another person and the approval
                                         of the Public Service Commission to
                                         the sale was not secured.         II eld:
           D :Pl:IVI~:G OWNER OF ITS     The plaintiff failing· to secure any
             Tunu FnAuD.-People          substantial    right under such pur-
          rll,l{/O, G. R. No. 38150,
                                         ported sale, it was proper to sanc-
          n. -The defendant pur-         tion the annulment of the contract
       p reel of land for P5,000,
                                         bringing with it the return of the
      ·T.6 paid in cash and the
                                         amount already paid. The plaintiff,
        be paid on June 20, 1931,
          pun. It was agreed that        being a possessor in good faith, was
     r should hold the deed un-          not liable for the revenues secured
         I payment is made.        On    by him for the use of the automobile
    , Ig31, the defendant          se-   while it was in his possession.     (Di-
        po session of the deed of        vi~ion of three, pel' lVlalcolm, J.;
     by delivering a check for           Hull and Imperial, JJ., concurring.)
       the offended party.        The    -B1'iefed    bV E. J. A.
    , \ hen the check was pre-
        the Philippine Na'tional
                                            DELEGATION     OF JUDICIAL    POWER':'-
       ment was refused.         Pro-
        pay the amount of the             EXTENT-Matias        Gal'bonel, vs. Edil-
     n registration of the deed           bel'to Jallores    et al., G. R. No.
     he defendant secured its            36955, July 29, 1933.-This         is an ac-
   'on and then mortgaged the            tion of detainer begun in the justice
 H hI: "By delivering to the             of the peace court of Pili, Camari-
    party the worthless check            nes Sur.       When appealed         to the
  . n in lieu of one thousand            Court of First Instance of Camari-
 n cash, the defendant           was     nes Sur, the presiding        judge dele-
    t possession of the deed of          gated this case together with others,
   the land, and after having            to the justice of the peace of the
 d recorded he mortgaged the             capital of the province, said justice
       appellant is clearly guil-        of the peace dcciding the cause in
   afa as provided by section            favor of the defendant.        Ileld:    "In
   . •'0. 3244 amending         Art.     Dumlao vs. Asuncion et als., R. G.
  he Penal Code.           (Division     N.o. 37027, decided March 23, 1933,
 , per Vickers, J.; Street and           this court held that the power of
  JJ., concllrring.)-B1·iefed            delegation hcre exercised         does not
J. A.                                    extend to cascs which are within the
                                         original jurisdiction     of the justice
                                         of the peace but only to such as
      cr   OF PURCHASE    AND SALE       are within the original jmisdiction
 I lE:\T-EFFECT          UPONPas ..      of the Caul·t of First          Instance."
 I'        GO:)D          Ficente
                   FAITII.-              Judgment     set asidc and cause re-
  . (!hin 'I'od 'I'okko and Sun-         manded.      (Division     of thrce, per
  Ilt./eros, G. R. No. 36735,            Street, J.; Santos and Vickcrs, JJ.,
• 1 '.j. This is an action to            concmring'.) -Briefed       by E. J. A.
                      OF                     duces no effect whatsoever.                (In Di-
CDcuMSTA:"CES      TAKEN TO DISCOVER vision, Pel' Malcolm, J.; Hull and
       TIONOF THE PARTIEs.-Mani-             Imperial,      JJ., concurring.)-Briefed
    Overland Sales Co., Inc. vs. Ja-         by H. R. VILLAROSA.
    o Lanza et al., Angel de Goicou-
  I   G. R. No. 86590 July 20, 1933.
   The defendant Lanza was arrested               LIBEL-PROOF            OF ABSENCE OF
   d taken to the police station after       GoQD FAITH.-Ped?·o Arteche vs. La
     discovery of some irregularities         Opinion Inc., G. R. No. 37464, Julll
   his accounts as a treasurer of the
                                             19, 1933.-In           the issue of August
  laintiff Co.      In the station      he
                                             29, 1929, of "LA OPINWN", a daily
  ped a sworn statement admitting
                                              newspaper         published in the City of
      rni appropriation   of the Com-
                                              Manila, was an article entitled "UN
   ny's funds. The defendant          Goi-
                                              ABOGADOEN PELIGRO" which article
   aria being related to Lanza we'nt
                                              mentioned        that attorney       Arteche iE
    the station and after some dis-
                                              running       the danger         of paying        a
     ion, wrote and signed at the end
                                              fine of $1,000 outside of being dis-
    Lanza's declaration, a statement
                                              barred,     for unauthorized            represen·
   at he bound himself in civil lia-
                                              tation.       The      mistake       was      madE
bility solidarily with Lanza in favor
                                              known to the defendant               by its cor-
 f the plaintiff to the amount mis-
                                              respondent from Ilagan who was the
appropriated by Lanza.       Lanza was
                                              author of the publication.                But thE
again reemployed by the plaintiff.
                                              defendant         refused     to rectify        the
  ubsequently thereafter     a criminal
                                              same.      Held:        The absence of good
action was filed against Lanza, and
                                              faith and justifiable          motives is seen
also against Goicouria to hold him
                                              by the circumstance               that the de-
  able under his undertaking.         Goi-
                                               fendant      refused      to correct        imme-
   aria maintained that he signed
                                               diately    its own error           despite     thE
the undertaking with the under-
                                               fact that its correspondent             had sent
ltanding that no original complaint
                                               to it an explanatory           telegram.       (Ir
   all be filed against Lanza. Held:
                                               Division,      Per. Imperial,         J.; Villa·
The court is not very much in sym-
                                               Real and Hull, JJ., concurring.)-
pathy with permitting         parties    ,to
                                               Briefed by H. R. VILLAROSA.
ftry the terms of written          instr~-
ments. At the same time, the Civil
Code permits the ascertainment            of
                                                   CIVIL PR-OCEDURE--EFFECT OF Ap,
the intention of the contractin 0' PEAL ON SPECIAL ApPEARANCE.-To.
parties by looking at their conduc~            -mas V. Rodriguez, et a!. vs. Regin(
at the time of making the contract             Veridiano, et a!., G. R. No. 365.1,9
and subsequent thereto (Art. 1282).            July 19, 1933.-Two                actions werE
 Bearing in mind the findings             of   filed by La Bondad Filipina against
 fact and the law it is reasonable        to   the plaintiffs        here for the sums 01
 deduce that Goicouria         was     only    P480.99 and P243.30.             The plaintiff1
 led to sign an obligation        because       mlade a special appearance                to con·
 Lanza was arrested,       and for the          test the jurisdiction          of the JustiCE
 aole purpose of obtaining         Lanza's      of the Peace.          The court overrul<lc
   beration and of saving him from              the petitioner's        special appearance
 criminal prosecution.      The contract        Proof was presented and a judgmen1
     contrary to law and morals, and            rendered      as prayed for.           The peti·
 because of this, the contract         pro-     tioners appealed but after a hearing
    I was denied with the con-       must bear the consequences of his
   b petitioner's attorney on        own acts.     (In Division, per Impe-
    d that the decision had al-      rial, J.; Villa-Real    and Hull, JJ.,
     llIefinal. Hence this peti-     concuning.)-Briefed       by H. R. V!-
   a writ of certiorari to an-       LLAROSA.

      ce dings had in the Jus-
      P ace court. lIeld: When
                                           HABITUAL       DELINQUENCY-WHEN
            [_lIant was notifien.
                                     IS     IT   NOT    CONSIDERED      AS   AN     AG-
      lit that a special appear-     GRAVATING         ClRCUMSTANCE.-P.        I. P.
          n overruled, he had a      vs.     Faustino   An'oyo,    R. G. No.
     t once perfect an appeal         38946, July       29, 1933.-Apellant
      l't of First Instance and       was charged with the crime of theft
    ppeal for such a purpose          in the municipal court of the City
  t n ake it a general appear-        of Manila, and upon his plea of
    b re defendant raises jur-        guilty was sentenceq        to suffer     a
   I ohjections in the lower          pcnalty of one month and one day
 d takes an appeal for the            of CI7'?"estomayo1' and an additional
      e of having the ruling on      penalty of two years, four months
· etions reviewed in the ap-         and one day of imprisonment             for
   urt, his appearance in the        habitual delinquency.       H!e appealed
 urt will not be considered          to the court of first instance where
     r flf such objections."    (4   upon arraignment       he again pleaded
     .;., 1:H7.)    (In Division,    guilty to the charge.      N otwithstand-
I, J.; Villa-Real and Impe-          ing his plea of guilty, the trial
., concul'l'ing.)-B)·iefed     by    judge ordered the prosecution to in-
I I \naSA.                           troduce its evidence.      Held: We do
                                     not agree with the solicitor-general
                                     that the mitigating circumstance         of
   Ar.m;ST     CHASTITY-IN-          plea of guilty is offset by the ag-
   OR I.'JURED     WOMAN.-           gravating     cireumstance      of recidi-
  'z   VS.     l1polinario Perez,    vism. The aggravating       circumstance
· .. l7l,2.?, July 18, 1933.-        of recidivism in this case cannot be
   'ff and the defendant had         taken into consideration,        inasmuch
  r lations for about four           as it has already been reckoned with
     h \\ere single and could        in the imposition of additional pen-
      . lid marriage. The com-       alty for habitual delinquency.         (In
    lilt allege, nor was there       divi~ion, per Santos, J.; Street and
    that the relation was se-        Vick01.'S J J., concl1l'ring.) -Briefed
    Ice :t 01' any other insi-       by ANTONIO C. MASAQUEL.
   11'.    The facts show that
 • 11 between them was with

  c n. Cllt of both parties.              PRESCRIPTION-RUNNING               OF     TH~;
    l"e being no proof that          PEP-TOD NOT         AFFECTED     BY THE        Ap-
  '~lIt appellant had abused         POINTMENT         OF AN ADi\IlNIS'I'llATOR.-
    II' of deceit or any other       Pedl'o G/ltic1't"ez V8. Eglllidio    Pedro,
       .chillation, which could      et al., R. G. No. 36211, July 12,
     he omce for reparation,         19B,i.-Action      of reivindication   pro-
   i f here cannot recover           secuted by the administrator        of Ana
     Tl~c relation being mu-         Pcralta, now dead fifty yeal'S. Ex-
    I n~ary e~ch one of them         cept as to a portion not involn'd in
                                             plaintiff's mother, there was an oral
     , L the trial comt dismissed
                                             extrajudicial       partition between the
      :aint and the administrator
                                             plaintiff and the father, and parcel
    1 d.                                     No. 1 of the present case was in-
       d f mlants had been in pos-
                                             volved in that partition.        Subsequent
    n 11lIch more than ten years,
                                             to the father's         death, there. was "
         pre, cription was effective as      family partition          of the propertie~
     . I ~Ol'l't held it to be, unless       then standing in his nam.e, in whid
        t that an administrator        had    plaintiff participated but now clai111~
        i inally appointed of the es-         that she is entitled to a further pal'
      f the deceased Ana Peralta,             ticipation in the properties mention
       olJO'h to prevent the preserip-        cd asserting that this propel'ties be
     fl' III having its due effect.           longed to her father at the time 0
    : The statute makes' no ex-                his death.        Defendants     claim ant
  . n in favor of a deccdent whose             prove that some. time before thl
       i under administration.         The     death of the father,         he had trans
     hat an administrator had been             ferrcd the title to the propertie
    i tell hupplies a good reason for          in question to his, son to his thel
   i 1" the prescription         effective.    wife and to the othcr              daughtel
                                               }] old: In the case of Poneyra c,
          11ll'cha better case against
                                                a1. vs. Tongson, et al., R. G. N(
     I',' iOIlwhen no administrator
                                                35G09 promulgated August 20, 19~'
    h,1 ,lppointe(1. (In division,
                                                this court had occasion to consid
           ,t, ,J.; Santos and Avancefia,
                                                the validity of deeds given by a
., ,n,',rrin',;.)-flricjed by ANTO-
                                                old and decrepit person to one 0
    C. J! \,).\QUEL.                            cupying fiduciary relationship          wit
                                                 the grantor and held that it w,
                                                 incumbent upon the party claimin
              \. 'CIXG-- V A LID I T Y   0 F     the benefit of such deed to demo
     , n TIVE_,'        PERSOXS    OCCUPY-       strate fully his good faith and tJr
     FI 'CI,\RY RBLATIONSHIP.-Ono-               he had not taken undue advanta
     \!J ,h,', ct (d. VS. Pedro S. Aglli-        of his favored position to enrich hi.
  , d aI., R, G. No . .'16436, July 31,           self at the expense of his other r
     . Plaintiff brought an action                latives not so favorably          situate
      h' 11a1   titian of property against         (Indivision, per H ulJ, J.; concunil
     h I: Lrothcrs who arc the here-              l\Ialcolm and Imperial, JJ.)-BI:ie
                                                   cd by A;';'I'o:\IQ C. l\IASAQUEL.
    I f nl:ints. After the death of

To top