Florentino v. Encarnacion

G.R. No. L-27696, 30 September 1977

FACTS:

On May 22, 1964, the petitioners-appellants and the petitioner-appellee filed with CFI an application for the registration under Act 496 of a parcel of agricultural land located at Cabugao, Ilocos Sur. The application alleged among other things that the applicants are the common and pro-indiviso owners in fee simple of the said land with the improvements existing thereon; that to the best of the knowledge and belief; there is no mortgage, hen or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever affecting said land, nor any other person having any estate or interest thereon, legal or equitable, remainder, reservation at in expectancy; that said applicants had acquired the aforesaid land thru and by inheritance from their predecessors in interest, their aunt, Doña Encarnacion Florentino, and Angel Encarnacion acquire their respective shares of the land thru purchase from the original heirs, Jesus, Caridad, Lourdes and Dolores, all surnamed Singson, on one hand and from Asuncion Florentino on the other. After due notice and publication, the Court set the application for hearing. Only the Director of Lands filed an opposition but was later withdrawn so an order of general default was issued. Upon application of the applicants, the Clerk of Court was commissioned and authorized to receive the evidence of the applicants and ordered to submit the same for the Court’s proper resolution.

Exhibit O-1 embodied in the deed of extrajudicial partition (Exhibit O), which states that with respect to the land situated in Barrio Lubong, Dacquel, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, the fruits thereof shall serve to defray the religious expenses, was the source of contention in this case (Spanish text). Florentino wanted to include ExhibitO-1 on the title but the Encarnacion supposed and subsequently withdrawn their application on their shares, which was opposed by the former.

The Court after hearing the motion for withdrawal and the opposition issued an order and for the purpose of ascertaining and implifying that the products of the land made subject matter of this land registration case had been used in answering for the payment of expenses for the religious functions specified in the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition which was no registered in the office of the Register of Deeds from time immemorial; and that the applicants knew of thisarrangement and the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition of August 24,1947, was not signed by Angel Encarnacion or Salvador Encarnacion, Jr.-CFI: The self-imposed arrangement in favor of the Church is a simple donation, but is void since the done has not accepted the donation and Salvador Encarnacion, Jr. and Angel Encarnacion had not made any oral or written grant at all so the court allowed the religious expenses to be made and entered on the undivided shares, interests and participations of all the applicants in this case, except that of Salvador Encarnacion, Sr., Salvador Encarnacion, Jr. and Angel Encarnacion.”-the

petitioners-appellants filed their Reply to the Opposition reiterating their previous arguments, and also attacking the jurisdiction of the registration court to pass upon the validity or invalidity of the agreement Exhibit O-1, alleging that such is litigable only in an ordinary action and not proper in a land registration proceeding.

The Motion for Reconsideration and of New Trial was denied for lack of merit, but the court modified in highlighting that the donee Church has not showed its clear acceptance of the donation, and is the real party of this case, not the petitioners-appellants.

ISSUE:

Whether or Not the court erred in concluding that the stipulation is just an arrangement stipulation.

RULING:

YES, the court erred in concluding that the stipulation is just an arrangement stipulation. It cannot be revoked unilaterally.

The contract must bind both parties, based on the principles (1) that obligation wising from contracts has the force of law between the contracting parties; and (2) that they must be mutuality between the parties band on their essential equality, to which is repugnant to have one party bound by the contract leaving the other free therefrom. The stipulation (Exhibit O-1) is part of an extrajudicial partition (Exh. O) duly agreed and signed by the parties, hence the same must bind the contracting parties thereto and its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them. The said stipulation is a Stipulation pour autrui. A stipulation pour autrui is a stipulation in favor of a third person conferring a clear and deliberate favor upon him, and which stipulation is merely a part of a contract entered into by the parties, neither of whom acted as agent of the third person, and such third person may demand its fulfillment provided that he communicates his acceptance to the obligor before it is revoked.

* Case digest by Neah Hope L. Bato, LLB-1, Andres Bonifacio Law School, SY 2017-2018

By |2018-05-17T07:03:04+00:00May 15th, 2018|Case Digests|0 Comments

Leave A Comment