G.R. No.

45662
ENRIQUE CLEMENTE, plaintif-appellee,
vs.
DIONISIO GALVAN, defendant-appellee.
JOSE ECHEVARRIA, intervenor-appellant.
Engracio F. Clemea and Celedonio
Bernardo for appellant.
Vicente Bengson for defendant-appellee.
No appearance for other party.
DIAZ, J.:
The intervenor Jose Echevarria having lost
in the o!rt of "irst #nstance of $anila
%hich rendered &!dg$ent against hi$, the
pertinent portion of %hich reads' (and %ith
respect to the co$plaint of the intervenor,
the $ortgage e)ec!ted in his favor *+
plaintif is declared n!ll and void, and said
co$plaint in intervention, as %ell as the
co!nterclai$ ,led *+ the defendant
against the intervenor, is dis$issed,
%itho!t prono!nce$ent as to costs,( he
appealed to this co!rt on the gro!nd that,
according to hi$, the lo%er co!rt
co$$itted the errors assigned in his *rief
as follo%s'
#. The co!rt a quo erred in ,nding in the
appealed decision that plaintif %as !na*le
to ta-e possession of the $achines s!*&ect
of the deed of $ortgage E)hi*it . either
*efore or after the e)ec!tion thereof.
##. The co!rt a quo li-e%ise erred in
deciding the present case against the
intervenor-appellant, on the gro!nd,
a$ong others, that (plaintif has not
add!ced an+ evidence nor has he testi,ed
to sho% that the $achines $ortgaged *+
hi$ to the intervenor have ever *elonged
to hi$, not%ithstanding that said
intervenor is his close relative.(.
###. The lo%er co!rt also erred in declaring
n!ll and void the $ortgage e)ec!ted *+
plaintif in favor of the intervenor and,
there*+, dis$issing the co$plaint in
intervention.
#/. The lo%er co!rt lastl+ erred in ordering
the receiver J. 0. 1encarini to deliver to
the defendant the aforesaid $achines
!pon petition of the plaintif.
#n order to have a clear idea of the
2!estion, it is proper to state the facts
*earing on the case as the+ appear in the
decision and &!dg$ent of the lo%er co!rt
and in the doc!$ents %hich constit!te all
the evidence add!ced *+ the parties
d!ring the trial.
3n J!ne 6, 4564, plaintif and defendant
organi7ed a civil partnership %hich the+
na$ed (Galvan + o$pa8ia( to engage in
the $an!fact!re and sale of paper and
other stationer+. the+ agreed to invest
therein a capital of 94::,:::, *!t as a
$atter of fact the+ did not cover $ore
than one-,fth thereof, each contri*!ting
94:,:::. ;ardl+ a +ear after s!ch
organi7ation, the plaintif co$$enced the
present case in the a*ove-$entioned
co!rt to as- for the dissol!tion of the
partnership and to co$pel defendant to
%ho$ the $anage$ent thereof %as
entr!sted to s!*$it an acco!nting of his
ad$inistration and to deliver to hi$ his
share as s!ch partner. #n his ans%er
defendant e)pressed his confor$it+ to the
dissol!tion of the partnership and the
li2!idation of its afairs< *!t *+ %a+ of
co!nterclai$ he as-ed that, having
covered a de,cit inc!rred *+ the
partnership a$o!nting to 94,::: %ith his
o%n $one+, plaintif rei$*!rse hi$ of
one-half of said s!$. 3n petition of the
plaintif a receiver and li2!idator to ta-e
charge of the properties and *!siness for
the partnership %hile the sa$e %as not
+et de,nitel+ dissolved, %as appointed,
the person chosen *eing J!an 0.
1encarini. The latter %as alread+
discharging the d!ties of his o=ce %hen
the co!rt, *+ virt!e of a petition ex
parte of the plaintif, iss!ed the order of
1a+ 24, 4566, re2!iring said receiver to
deliver to hi$ >plaintif? certain $achines
%hich %ere then at Nos. @:5-@:@ Ala+a
Btreet, 1anila *!t a!thori7ing hi$ to
charge their val!e of 94,5:: against the
portion %hich $a+ event!all+ *e d!e to
said plaintif. To co$pl+ %ith said order,
the receiver delivered to plaintif the -e+s
to the place %here the $achines %ere
fo!nd, %hich %as the sa$e place %here
defendant had his ho$e< *!t *efore he
co!ld ta-e act!al possession of said
$achines, !pon the strong opposition of
defendant, the co!rt, on $otion of the
latter, s!spended the efects of its order of
1a+ 24, 4566. #n the $eanti$e the
&!dg$ents rendered in cases Nos. 42@54
and 46:@: entitled (9hilippine Ed!cation
o., #nc. vs. Enri2!e le$ente( for the
recover+ of a s!$ of $one+, and (Jose
Echevarria vs. Enri2!e le$ente(, also for
the recover+ of a s!$ of $one+,
respectivel+, %ere $ade e)ec!tor+< and in
order to avoid the attach$ent and
s!*se2!ent sale of the $achines *+ the
sherif for the satisfaction fro$ the
proceeds thereof of the &!dg$ents
rendered in the t%o cases aforecited,
plaintif agreed %ith the intervenor, %ho is
his nephe%, to e)ec!te, as he in fact
e)ec!ted in favor of the latter, a deed of
$ortgage E)hi*it . enc!$*ering the
$achines descri*ed in said deed in %hich
it is stated that (the+ are sit!ated on
Bingalong Btreet No. 4466(, %hich is a
place entirel+ diferent fro$ the ho!se
Nos. @:5 and @:@ on Ala+a Btreet
herein*efore $entioned. The one +ear
agreed !pon in the deed of $ortgage for
the f!l,ll$ent *+ the plaintif of the
o*ligation he had contracted %ith the
intervenor, having e)pired, the latter
co$$enced case No. 45625 to collect his
$ortgage credit. The intervenor, as
plaintif in the said case, o*tained
&!dg$ent in his favor *eca!se the
defendant did not interpose an+ defense
or o*&ection, and, $oreover, ad$itted
*eing reall+ inde*ted to the intervenor in
the a$o!nt set forth in the deed of
$ortgage E)hi*it .. The $achines %hich
the intervenor said %ere $ortgaged to
hi$ %ere then in fact in custodia legis, as
the+ %ere !nder the control of the receiver
and li2!idator J!an 0. 1encarini. #t %as,
therefore, !seless for the intervenor to
attach the sa$e in vie% of the receiverCs
opposition< and the 2!estion having *een
*ro!ght to co!rt, it decided that nothing
co!ld *e done *eca!se the receiver %as
not a part+ to the case %hich the
intervenor instit!ted to collect his
aforesaid credit. >ivil case No. 45625.?
The 2!estion ended th!s *eca!se the
intervenor did not ta-e an+ other step
!ntil he tho!ght of &oining in this case as
intervenor.
4. "ro$ the foregoing facts, it is clear that
plaintif co!ld not o*tain possession of the
$achines in 2!estion. The constr!ctive
possession ded!ci*le fro$ the fact that he
had the -e+s to the place %here the
$achines %ere fo!nd >Ala+a Btreet Nos.
@:5-@:@?, as the+ had *een delivered to
hi$ *+ the receiver, does not help hi$ an+
*eca!se the lo%er co!rt s!spended the
efects of the other %here*+ the -e+s %ere
delivered to hi$ a fe% da+s after its
iss!ance< and thereafter revo-ed it
entirel+ in the appealed decision.
"!rther$ore, %hen he atte$pted to ta-e
act!al possession of the $achines, the
defendant did not allo% hi$ to do so.
onse2!entl+, if he did not have act!al
possession of the $achines, he co!ld not
in an+ $anner $ortgage the$, for %hile it
is tr!e that the oft-$entioned deed of
$ortgage E)hi*it . %as annotated in the
registr+ of propert+, it is no less tr!e the
$achines to %hich it refers are not the
sa$e as those in 2!estion *eca!se the
latter are on Ala+a Btreet Nos. @:5-@:@
and the for$er are on Bingalong Btreet
No. 4466. #t can not *e said that E)hi*it .-
4, allegedl+ a s!pple$entar+ contract
*et%een the plaintif and the intervenor,
sho%s that the $achines referred to in the
deed of $ortgage are the sa$e as those
in disp!te and %hich are fo!nd on Ala+a
Btreet *eca!se said e)hi*it *eing $erel+ a
private doc!$ent, the sa$e cannot var+
or alter the ter$s of a p!*lic doc!$ent
%hich is E)hi*it . or the deed of
$ortgage.
2. The second error attri*!ted to the lo%er
co!rt is *aseless. The evidence of record
sho%s that the $achines in contention
originall+ *elonged to the defendant and
fro$ hi$ %ere transferred to the
partnership Galvan + o$pania. This
*eing the case, said $achines *elong to
the partnership and not to hi$, and shall
*elong to it !ntil partition is efected
according to the res!lt thereof after the
li2!idation.
6. The last t%o errors attri*!ted *+ the
appellant to the lo%er co!rt have alread+
*een disposed of *+ the considerations
a*ove set forth. the+ are as *aseless as
the previo!s ones.
#n vie% of all the foregoing, the &!dg$ent
appealed fro$ is a=r$ed, %ith costs
against the appellant. Bo ordered.
G.R. No. L-5963 May 2, !953
THE LE"TE-SAMAR SALES CO., a#$
RA"MUNDO TOMASSI, petitioners,
vs.
SUL%ICIO V. CEA, &# '&( )a*a)&+y a(
J,$-. o/ +'. Co,0+ o/ 1&0(+ I#(+a#). o/
L.y+. a#$ OLEGARIO
LASTRILLA, respondents.
Filomeno onte!o for petitioners.
"ulpicio V. Cea in his o#n $ehalf.
%legario &astrilla in his o#n $ehalf.
2ENGZON, J.3
Da*aled (Certiorari and 9rohi*ition %ith
preli$inar+ #n&!nction( this petition pra+s
for the additional %rit ofmandamus to
co$pel the respondent &!dge to give d!e
co!rse to petitionersC appeal fro$ his
order ta)ing costs. ;o%ever, inas$!ch as
according to the ans%er, petitioners
thro!gh their attorne+ %ithdre% their cash
appeal *ond of 96: after the record on
appeal *ond of 96: after the record on
appeal had *een re&ected, the $atter
ofmandamus $a+ *e s!$$aril+ *e
dropped %itho!t f!rther co$$ent.
"ro$ the pleadings it appears that,
#n civil case No. 456 of the o!rt of "irst
#nstance of De+te, %hich is a s!it for
da$ages *+ the De+te-Ba$ar Bales o.
>hereinafter called DEBB3? and Ra+$ond
To$assi against the "ar Eastern D!$*er E
o$$ercial o. >!nregistered co$$ercial
partnership hereinafter called "ED3?,
Frnold ;all, "red .ro%n and Jean Ro)as,
&!dg$ent against defendants &ointl+ and
severall+ for the a$o!nt of 964,5G5.44
pl!s costs %as rendered on 3cto*er 25,
454G. The o!rt of Fppeals con,r$ed the
a%ard in Nove$*er 455:, $in!s 92,:::
representing attorne+Cs fees $ista-enl+
incl!ded. The decision having *eco$e
,nal, the sherif sold at a!ction on J!ne 5,
4554 to Ro*ert 0orfe and 9epito Fst!rias
(all the rights, interests, titles and
participation( of the defendants in certain
*!ildings and properties descri*ed in the
certi,cate, for a total price of eight
tho!sand and one h!ndred pesos. .!t on
J!ne 4, 4554 3legario Dastrilla ,led in the
case a $otion, %herein he clai$ed to *e
the o%ner *+ p!rchase on Bepte$*er 25,
4545, of all the (shares and interests( of
defendant "red .ro%n in the "ED3, and
re2!ested (!nder the la% of preference of
credits( that the sherif *e re2!ired to
retain in his possession so $!ch of the
deeds of the a!ction sale as $a+ *e
necessar+ (to pa+ his right(. 3ver the
plaintifsC o*&ection the &!dge in his order
of J!ne 46, 4554, granted DastrillaCs
$otion *+ re2!iring the sherif to retain 4@
per cent of the $one+ (for deliver+ to the
assignee, ad$inistrator or receiver( of the
"ED3. Fnd on $otion of Dastrilla, the
co!rt on F!g!st 44, 4554, $odi,ed its
order of deliver+ and $erel+ declared that
Dastrilla %as entitled to 4@ per cent of the
properties sold, sa+ing in part'
. . . el J!7gado ha encontrado 2!e
no se han respetado los derechos
del Br. Dastrilla en lo 2!e se re,ere
a s! ad2!iscicion de las acciones
de . Frnold ;all >"red .ro%n? en la
"ar Eastern D!$*er E D!$*er
o$$ercial . por2!e la $is$as
han sido incl!idas en la s!*asta.
Es vedad 2!e las acciones
ad2!iridas por el Br. Dastilla
representan el 4@ por ciento del
capital de la sociedad ("ar Eastern
D!$*er E o$$ercial o., #nc., et
al.( pero esto no 2!iere decir 2!e
s! vlor no esta s!&eto a las
H!ct!aciones del negocio donde las
invirtio.
Be vendieron propiedades de la
corporacion ("ar Eastern D!$*er E
o. #nc.,( + de la venta sola$ente
se o*t!vo la cantidad de 9G,4::.
'En su virtud( se declara 2!e el 4@
por ciento de las propiedades
vendidas en p!*lica s!*asta
pretenece al Br. 3 Dastrilla + este
tiene derecho a dicha porcion pero
con la o*ligacion de pagar el 4@
por ciento de los gastos for la
conservacion de dichas
propriedades por parte del Bherif< .
. . . >Fnne) I?
#t is fro$ this declaration and the
s!*se2!ent orders to enforce it
4
that the
petitioners see- relief *+ certiorari, their
position *eing the s!ch orders %ere n!ll
and void for lac- of &!risdiction. Ft their
re2!est a %rit of preli$inar+ in&!nction
%as iss!ed here.
The record is not ver+ clear, *!t there are
indications, and %e shall ass!$e for the
$o$ent, that "red .ro%n >li-e Frnold ;all
and Jean Ro)as? %as a partner of the
"ED3, %as defendant in ivil ase No.
456 as such partner(and that the
properties sold at a!ction act!all+
*elonged to the "ED3 partnership and
the partners. Je shall also ass!$e that
the sale $ade to Dastrilla on Bepte$*er
25, 4545, of all the shares of "red .ro%n in
the "ED3 %as valid. >Re$e$*er that
&!dg$ent in this case %as entered in the
co!rt of ,rst instance a +ear *efore.?
The res!lt then, is that on J!ne 5, 4554
%hen the sale %as efected of the
properties of "ED3 to Ro*erto 0orfe and
9epito Fst!rias, Dastilla %as alread+ a
partner of "ED3.
No%, does Dastrilla have an+ proper clai$
to the proceeds of the saleK #f he %as a
creditor of the "ED3, perhaps or $a+*e.
.!t he %as no. The partner of a
partnership is not a creditor of s!ch
partnership for the a$o!nt of his shares.
That is too ele$entar+ to need
ela*oration.
DastrillaCs theor+, and the lo%er co!rtCs
see$s to *e' inas$!ch as Dastrilla had
ac2!ired the shares of .ro%n is
Bepte$*er, 4545, i.e.( *efore the a!ction
sale and he %as not a part+ to the
litigation, s!ch shares co!ld not have *een
transferred to 0orfe and F!strilla.
Granting arguendo that the a!ction sale
and not incl!ded the interest or portion of
the "ED3 properties corresponding to the
shares of Dastrilla in the sa$e partnership
>4@L?, the res!lting sit!ation %o!ld *e M
at $ost M that the p!rchasers 0orfe and
F!strias %ill have to recogni7ed do$inion
of Dastrillas over 4@ per cent of the
properties a%arded to the$.
2
Bo Dastrilla
ac2!ired no right to de$and an+ part of
the $one+ paid *+ 0orfe and F!strias to
he sherif an+ part of the $one+ paid *+
0orfe and F!strias to the sherif for the
*ene,t of "ED3 and To$assi, the
plaintifs in that case, for the reason that,
as he sa+s, his shares >ac2!ired fro$
.ro%n? co!ld not have *een and %ere not
a!ctioned of to 0orfe and F!strias.
B!pposing ho%ever that Dastrillas shares
have *een act!all+ >*!t !nla%f!ll+? sold
*+ the sherif >at the instance of plaintifs?
to 0orfe and F!strias, %hat is his re$ed+K
Bection 45, R!le 65 f!rnishes the ans%er.
9recisel+, respondents arg!e, Dastrilla
vindicated his clai$ *+ proper
action, i.e.( $otion in the case. Je r!led
once that (action( in this section $eans
action as de,ned in section 4, R!le
2.
6
Fn+%a+ his re$ed+ is to clai$ (the
propert+(, not the proceeds of the sale,
%hich the sherif is directed *+ section 44,
R!le 65 to deliver !nto the &!dg$ent
creditors.
#n other %ords, the o%ner of propert+
%rongf!ll+ sold $a+ not vol!ntaril+ co$e
to co!rt, and insist, (# approve the sale,
therefore give $e the proceeds *eca!se #
a$ the o%ner(. The reason is that the sale
%as $ade for the &!dg$ent creditor >%ho
paid for the fees and notices?, and not for
an+*od+ else.
3n this score the respondent &!dgeCs
action on DastrillaCs $otion sho!ld *e
declared as in e)cess of &!risdiction, %hich
even a$o!nted to %ant of &!risdiction,
%hich even a$o!nted to %ant of
&!risdiction, considering speciall+ that
0orfe and F!strias, and the defendants
the$selves, had !ndo!*tedl+ the right to
$e heard)$ut they #ere not noti*ed.
4
Jh+ %as it necessar+ to hear the$ on the
$erits of DastrillaCs $otionK
.eca!se 0orfe and F!strillas $ight *e
!n%illing to recogni7ed the validit+ of
DastrillaCs p!rchase, or, if valid, the+ $a+
%ant hi$ not to forsa-e the partnership
that $ight have so$e o*ligations in
connection %ith the partnership
properties. Fnd %hat is $ore i$portant, if
the $otion is granted, %hen the ti$e for
rede$ptioner seventeen per cent
>4@GL? less than amount the+ had paid for
the sa$e properties.
The defendants Frnold ;all and Jean
Ro)as, e+eing DastrillaCs ,nancial assets,
$ight also oppose the s!*stit!tion *+
Dastrilla of "red .ro%n, the &!dg$ent
against the$ *eing !oint and several. The+
$ight entertain $isgivings a*o!t .ro%nCs
slipping o!t of their co$$on predica$ent
thro!gh the disposal of his shares.
Dastl+, all the defendants %o!ld have
reasona*le $otives to o*&ect to the
deliver+ of 4@ per cent of the proceeds to
D!strial, *eca!se it is so $!ch $one+
ded!cted, and for %hich the
plaintifs might as another levy on their
other holdings or reso!rces. B!pposing of
co!rse, there %as no fra!d!lent coll!sion
a$ong the$.
No%, these varied interest of necessit+
$a-e 0orfe, Fst!rias and the
defendants indispensa$le parties to the
$otion of Dastrilla M granting it %as step
allo%a*le !nder o!r reg!lations on
e)ec!tion. Aet these parties %ere not
noti,ed, and o*vio!sl+ too- no part in the
proceedings on the $otion.
F valid &!dg$ent cannot *e
rendered %here there is a %ant of
necessar+ parties, and a co!rt
cannot properl+ ad&!dicate $atters
involved in a s!it %hen necessar+
and indispensa*le parties to the
proceedings are not *efore it. >45
.J.B., 6@.?
#ndispensa*le parties are those
%itho!t %ho$ the action cannot *e
,nall+ deter$ined. #n a case for
recover+ of real propert+, the
defendant alleged in his ans%er
that he %as occ!p+ing the propert+
as a tenant of a third person. This
third person is an indispensa*le
part+, for, %itho!t hi$, an+
&!dg$ent %hich the plaintif $ight
o*tain against the tenant #ould
have no e+ectiveness( for it %o!ld
not *e *inding !pon, and cannot *e
e)ec!ted against, the defendantCs
landlord, against %ho$ the plaintif
has to ,le another action if he
desires to recover the propert+
efectivel+. #n an action for partition
of propert+, each co-o%ner is an
indispensa*le part+. >1oran,
o$$ents, 4552 ed. /ol. #, p. 56.?
>Emphasis s!pplied.?
Jherefore, the orders of the co!rt
recogni7ing DastrillaCs right and ordering
pa+$ent to hi$ of a part of the proceeds
%ere patentl+ erroneo!s, *eca!se
pro$!lgated in e)cess or o!tside of its
&!risdiction. "or this reason the
respondentsC arg!$ent resting on
plaintifsC fail!re to appeal fro$ the orders
on ti$e, altho!gh ordinaril+ decisive,
carries no pers!asive force in this
instance.
"or as the for$er hief J!stice 0r. 1oran
has s!$$ari7ed in his o$$ents, 4552
ed. /ol. ##, p. 46G M
. . . Fnd in those instances %herein
the lo%er co!rt has acted %itho!t
&!risdiction over the s!*&ect-
$atter, or %here the order or
&!dg$ent co$plained of is a patent
n!llit+, co!rts have gone even as
far as to disregard co$pletel+ the
2!estions of petitionerCs fa!lt, the
reason *eing, !ndo!*tedl+, that
acts perfor$ed %ith a*sol!te %ant
of &!risdiction over the s!*&ect-
$atter are void a$ initio and
cannot *e validated *+ consent,
e)press or i$plied, of the parties.
Th!s, the B!pre$e o!rt granted a
petition for certiorari and set aside
an order reopening a cadastral
case ,ve +ears after the &!dg$ent
rendered therein had *eco$e ,nal.
#n another case, the o!rt set aside
an order a$ending a &!dg$ent
ac2!ired a de,nitive character. Fnd
still in another case, an order
granting a revie% of a decree of
registration iss!ed $ore than a
+ear ago had *een declared n!ll
void. #n all these case the e)istence
of the right to appeal has *een
recitals %as rendered %itho!t an+
trial or hearing, and the B!pre$e
o!rt, in granting certiorari( said
that the &!dg$ent %as *+ its o%n
recitals a patent n!llit+, %hich
sho!ld *e set aside tho!gh an
appeal %as availa*le *!t %as not
availed of. . . .
#nvo-ing o!r r!ling in elocotones vs.
Court of First ,nstance( >5@ 9hil., 444?,
%herein %e applied the theor+ of laches to
petitionersC 6-+ears dela+ in
re2!esting certiorari, respondents point
o!t that %hereas the orders co$plained of
herein %ere iss!ed in J!ne 46, 4554 and
F!g!st 44, 4554 this special civil action
%as not ,led !ntil F!g!st 4552. #t sho!ld
*e o*served that the order of J!ne 46 %as
s!perseded *+ that of F!g!st 44, 4554.
The last order $erel+ declared (2!e el 4@
por ciento de la propiedades vendidas en
p!*lica s!*asta pertenece at Br. Dastrilla +
este tiene derecho a dicha porcion.( This
does not necessaril+ $ean that 4@ per
cent of the money had to $e delivered to
hi$. #t co!ld $ean, as herein*efore
indicated, that the p!rchasers of the
propert+ >0orfe and Fst!rias? had to
recogni7e DastrillaCs o%nership. #t %as onl+
on -pril ./( .012 >Fnne) N? that the co!rt
iss!ed an order directing the sherif (to
t!n over( to Dastrilla (4@ per cent of the
total proceeds of the a!ction sale(. There
is the order that act!all+ pre&!diced the
petitioners herein, and the+ fo!ght it !ntil
the last order of J!l+ 4:,. 4552 >Fnne) N?.
B!rel+ a $onthCs dela+ $a+ not *e
regarded as laches.
#n vie% of the foregoing, it is o!r opinion,
and %e so hold, that all orders of the
respondents &!dge re2!iring deliver+ of 4@
per cent of the proceeds of the a!ction
sale to respondent 3legario Dastrilla are
n!ll and void< and the costs of this s!it
shall *e ta)ed against the latter. The
preli$inar+ in&!nction heretofore iss!ed is
$ade per$anent. Bo ordered.