Montinola v. Herbosa

8/9/2019 Montinola v. Herbosa

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/montinola-v-herbosa 1/14



378 CORT O APPEALS REPORTS

Motiola s Hrbosa t l

ing illegal ssoiations a a means of promoting or inducingebellion and after a proceeding i which he was denied therght of ofrontaton was covicted ad sentenced o deathand ordered to pay n indemity of Pl00,000.00 in favor of

the tate the obligation being transmissible his heirs. Ria was xeute o ec 30, 1896 leaving ert in artices litigatedin this actio. he tria ourt held that the udgment ofindemnity is stil eforceabe against the estate and heis ofRizal and · tat the reics in question beong to the Republiof the Phiippies beause the said indemni has never beensatisied Hed: he judgment of indemnity may no longebe enforced for the folowing reasons: (1 Histoy has repudiated the pansh harge that Rizal was a traitor, as \eas the validi of the iminal proeedings _against him. oenforce the judgmet woud be to rewrite the verdit of hitor that Riza died a hero of the Filipino ppl (2) heharge against Rizal was for a rime with politia om

plexion po the change of sovereinty and by virtue ofthe reaty of Paris of pril 1 1899 all poitial acts or ats with poitil complxion of the panis h Cown beame ipsofact nul and void; ad (3) he judgment was entered morethan 5 years ago ec 6 Rule 39 Rules of Court; rt144, Cvl ode

2 WS R' TO Dos", NOT A Wn instrument whih merely expresses a last wish as a thought or advicebut does not contan a dispositon of property and wa noexecud with an1s testad cnnot legally be conside1eda \ Rizas timo dios is a iterary piee of workand was so intended t may considered a wil in the gram

maial sense but not in the leg or uridil sense.3. A; PICE MUST BE RE L, NOT FIO US; P CE O f .00 I

CASE AT BAR FITIT OUS.- While rticle 1469 o the Civi

Code does not require1 f or the vidity of a ontr:ct of sale,

that the price be adequate, it odains that the price be real ·

nd not f ititious. Whee the things sld are w orth r20,ooo.oo'the price ·of Pl.00 is not merely gossly inadequate, but it is

not real; it is fititious

4. OWRSHIP PASSE OT BY MEE CONSENT BUT B ADO-h eecuton of n pubc instument of sale doe notconstte synbolic traditon hr thee is an areement tht

.

VOL FEBUARY 4, 96 379

Moiola s Hrbosa al

the vendor would remai i possessio of the thing sod for the cil a owership oes ot pass by er conset but ·by ition

5 O EOV O POSESSIO O EOAL POE Y

SESSO I Goo QUIVALEN TO ILE VIDENEhe possessio good fait of persoa proper acquired byucrativ title s equivalent to a title (rt 559, Civil Code)

hece i a n •ation to reover possession of persol propertypatiff ust prove that he was its ower or pror ps

sessr ad tht he had lost it or had been ulawfully depivedhreof (otto vs. nage 43 O.G., 5075) .

PPEAL fr a judgment f the Ct of First Instanef Manila Gataitan !

he ts re stated in the pinion the Court.

Jo J Fracisco fr plaintiff and appelant.Vict M M agpoc fr defndant and appele stani-

lo HerbosaAsitat olicior Gral Esmrald Umali· Solic-

ior Bribro D Igacio or defendant nd appellee Maari Ona

M JUSTCE CAPSAN delvered the pnin f theurt

The plantif nd both defenants having aditted nher pleadngs that their respective as o ownershpcae· fo the sa soure Do Trinidd Rizl ther

was no question that the Rizal relis were privte property.The tia court, owever, seid upon aintis testimonythat D rnidd had dted whether she had the rightto sel h the Rizal relics, n rdr t ake the stranged rut iding that with resect t the intrnsicvlty o the deed of sale Exhibit B, ther wr historil d1t agJint the same, whih required nrtion ichronologicl orr of their ocurrene in Dcember, 19.The Court then ge the nrrtion the highlights which







384 OUT O APPEAS EPRTS

Montinola vs. Heosa e l.

esora tuvn titulo d odad adqudo po s lag oss6 o o ed as domo c oa drho dl Esdo'

Historica records show that Rizals· execution sparked theFilpio reoltio ginst Spi. We recll the immort words o the great Filiino poet Cecilio Apstol, Rizas xecution: "Si una baa destrz6 tu craneo tm-bie t id destroz u imperio. Ater the oerthrowo the Spish regime ad the defat of Filipio rms bthe Americns, the Amerian regime did not moe for thexectio of the judgmet' against Rizal and his heirs withrespect to the idemnity; instead the American regimei accord with the sentimet of the Filipino people ele

vted Rizal to the seat of the martyr. hus, Rizl becameor greatest nationa hero and has remned so f or a

period of more than sixty years to�date comprising the America regime the Commowe th period, and theRepblic era. istory hs ths repudiated the Spanishcharge that Rizal was a traitor, s well as the vaidity ofthe criminal proceeding against Rizal in hich he wasdenied the right of confrontation, of the Spanish sentenceof death ad the exectio of Rizal and of the jdgmentagainst Rizal and his heirs to pay the State then repre-sented by the Spanish government the sm of !100,000.00as indemity. o say ow as the tril cort hs that thedgment of indemity against Riza ad his heirs wasand stil is valid and enforeble, is error Such holdingis a repudiation of the verdict of history in favor of Rizl

It s error to hold that the judgment of the SpanishCounil of War is still eforceble against the estate andheirs o Riza, and that the relics in question belong tothe Repbic of the Philippies because the adjudgeddemity of 100,000.00 hs ee been satisfied osutain he eforceme the Saish udgmt o he

:. 't .

. f , _ ' .

VOL 3 FEBRUARY 1, 96 5

Montnola vs. erbosa, et al

indeit a?ainst the Riza ics asid rom ng legay l�poss be, woud b to ewite the vedict of histothat za dd a heo of the Fiipino peop

he tia court went futh ad hed that the·.Rizaris in itigation w popty of th Stat fom a di-�nt point o viw t wit that Riza's "timo Adioss a hoogaphic wi The ow out s asoning is asfoows:

"P o dmS, ddS xs odv sb I xdd dt �:, ot d mt .os v mJm oo L os z :

Ads, Pt dod, g· d� o d d M d Ot, o ddo d

A t voy tst, ms vd;

y f m b, ms f odab o t d, d t b

mo d b do o do

Oto t d d, dd

E o d mot; , o, Cdso 1o bo, ombt mto mm o d P y o

'

Yo mo do vo o oo Y f d, bo

z •

, o1

Vt m, dm b Y d fjo d t !

} o d mo dot os do jov, Bo d vo,

Fo v d joy d M d Os s ojos, ts f,

o, a 1 d boo d m vd, m d vvo o

id t m, oto v •

I d , s moso o dt �Mo d vd, mo bjo o,

Y t td t tdd dom sob m so v ot, d,

Et yb md o,










http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/montinola-v-herbosa 10/14 I

394 CO U R T O F APP EALS R E

O R TS

M ont in ol a v . H er b o s , e .

En t e st im o io de l o c ul , f ir m o se l l o e se do m e no e n e l ug a

f e ha m e ionados m �s b

R e g No No. 172

Pg No 94

Libro No. I

Srie de 1950."

(Sg d ) M D M E O T !N D ES

. Notar i • Publ ic

Hst e l 3 de Dic ie m b e de 1951

Accordng to ppella t t he prior p vte inst:ume t _ � xd

hi bit c, dated J uy 25 949 signed b y ona T .a 1

Riz a sted t he tr e price of 120,000.00 o al t he R1z

d rel c; sold b y Do a Trndd Rz a to him nd enumeate

in E hbit B E hi bit C states:

"R EC IBO

d 1 D Jos R izl y he e de a pin pl e y 0 he m a m o e ·

. · f Do t C E DO V EN y T R AS ASO a f vor de m ; g o lil m o

.

s �q o�e p.

, ? on inol a os sg ie e s at c os pe r so e s de m

df nt o he m no e l D . Jos R izal :

1 V EIN I�O CHO C A AS P E RSON A L ES D E D R . JOS E IZ

A L;

2

'

UN A C A J A O P T C A L P A A G A D A OS O JOS E D . OS E RZ A L;

3 A B UM D E F A I L A D E L D JOS E Z A E CH A DO EN LO-• UN

DES E L V EN ES , 15 D E UN IO D E 1888 i ,

A

D E CO E C C I6N D E C A AO ES E UN I D AS PO R E L D . 4. UNA � .

OS E Z A EN D A P AN E 23 D E E E O D E J896.

M i, 2 de ju o e 949 {Pr e c lo oa

R e cibido:

Sg d ) M A L A Y A F. P A LI EO

Te st ig o

P20,000.00)

(Sg d.) T N D A D ZA L

(Vendedo·a)

(Sg d) cnuz .· Tsg "

\ ;

VOL. 3 FEBRUARY 14 1963 95

Montinola v. eroa, et al

ppent lso lleged tht upon the executon o Exh. B he took possesson of all the thngs sold, ecet the s( 6) recs in quesion whch upon Do indd's re-quest, were eft in her possesson u her eath Do

nad Rz ded on M 9 1951eenntppelee Estanslo Hebos, nehew of oi Rzal dmts that he has in hs posseson the olowing hree (3) Rizal recs n ltgaton:

. he lcohol lmp whee Rzl hd hs poem M Ultmo Ads";

2 he orgnal pantng of Rzl b Jun Luna and3. he rgnl crayon ntng· of Leonor Riera b

Rzl.

He clms hat the alcohol mp ws gven to hm by h

unt, o Trndad Rzal that he took sad lmp fomr Ublo wo ws then n possesson theeof sometme the lst month of 950 or the first month of 1951;

tht n comlance wth Doa Tndad Rzas st wsh he lghted the alcohol lam besde her b<r s hown nthe Stu Mirror pctor of My 13 1951 Eh l;tht the cryon pntng of Lenor Rer ws kewsge to him b Do Trind n the mddle of 1950togehe with the pantng of Rz b uan Lun becauseccorng to Do ndd te tw pntngs should not be seprted. · ' ·

Defendntappellee Macro Ofan clms tht n une19 1950 t the nuguaton of the reconstucted Caambafm home of Rzal then Presdent Quno of the Phlppnes erblly drete Lus Montl, Drector of theNtionl Library and Chimn of t he Philippie Histo-

c Committee, to retrie ve nd coect ll the uiture

a recs ef t by Riz al. Actng on sad drectve, Drecto

Mo tila requested apellee Ofiana, then Secretay of t

Committee, to gther n tak possession of the scattered



396COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS

Mo1tnola vs Hersa e .

fnitre and elics left by the national hero from theviving members of izal famiy in Manila and thenearby provinces A oon as appellee Ofiana acquiredaid relics and oher peronal propery let by the hero

he dposited them at he izal Shrine at Fort antiagoAppellee Ofiana admitted that among he reic thµs de-

poited by him at he Shrine are he heros tw top hatsdelvered by he hero's nephew Dr Ubaldo and the woolen clothes deivered by hi siter Doa Trinidad Rizal bt denied having received the silver pen which Rizal had won a first prize in a iteray contest Appellant Ofianamade an inventory of all the Rizal relics in hi cstodyfor he Committe marked Exhbi 0fiana 1A to1K inclsive. Director Montilla made a forma reportto the ·President of the Philippines of the work of theCommitee in charge of the gathering and coection othe heros mementos and memorabilia which were intalled in Fort Santiago as part of he permnentizaliana exhibits. The fitre remained in the Rizalfamiy ome at Calamba

The cort quo refsed to give effect to Exhibit B inelation to Exhibit C of plaintiffappellant becase ofcertain circmstnces

which strongly miitated against

the validity and efficacy of Ehibit B and affected thintegriy thereof The tril crt aid:

Eaminadas las pebas, e uzgo encuenta que n causa dedmandante est sosnda pr un documeno notaia� Exh B; por e tesimonio de Noaio PUbico Sr Manuel D Melotindes.st< po un ado; por oro do el Juzgdo a notdo que el docun1ent en cues6n es dupicado al cab6n y no es el orignal aunque leva la fima de la vendedor pero a actui6n de Noaio que lo bia rtificdo, deja lg que desear poque a copia oficiaque tena y que no la pesent6 a Juzgado como as requiee la lento de mes de la ratifcaci6n del documento habindolo sometidoc msmo el ao 1955, 6 sea cinco (5) aos despus. Luego deer ciea l declacin de Moninoa de que e de Juio e

-.

, "•'Ui

\ i � I

; ' �

�.

VO 3 FEBUARY 4, 963 397

Montinoa vs ebosa, et a

99, fecha del Exh C, ya hubiese covenido con Do Tiiddd que l compr bacaba odas as 16 pidas consigda eel oo documeno Exh B el Juzgado enuea incopeiblec6o e qu e quel pime doumet Eh C o e ecioque real ·y ddeamente icluye oda qul 6 par-

d pue, o i 6n gun que uific la oii6 de l doce (12) pria que fueon upimid E l Juzgd o bi cun bstae om que el comprdo hubiee peido qe I prte de s alo de l efecto que h coprdoYg la lampailla de alcool uviera que quedae en pose6 de l venddoa si Moninol dice qu eso e debe a que DoTinid o qu desporse de e reiquias menr ell -

viee-que es, p ciero, bue plicaci6-, el ugado o com ped el p qu Monino no eige siquie una not efecde que Do Triidad etena prte de io efecos vendidos os dig que est requerimiento seri dfici y a l ve volet o

p el espeto qu Moinoa eia la vendedor porque pr 0s

imo ExhsB

yC

emo que pesa de se pecio Moinoll fin Y ·al cbo, pidi6 o de6 que s oog el documento de vn a u fvo Adems, si com Motinola dic que el preciototl de a vena de l 16 partidas a de P0,000.00 y que l o ha saisfecho pagand o parte de elo e juio de 949 l otor·e el prime documento Exh C, (o dice cuano) y etregdol te e a fech meditete aes de l fecha egudo doumento Eh. B el 1�r de Sepiembe de 1950 el Jugao no comprede e pr qu uvie qe decse e el sgudodcumeo de que el pecio er solmene de u pe (l.00. dice :Oiol que Cso se hizo porque o Tnidd o queue e publicar la vea de a reiqu de hoe su expicaci6n

viee en puga con e Exh. C e rime documento, porque o ay

uesti6 de que e que documento Do Trinidd hio pblicot o tesigo de a "itad veta, siendo uno de ellos MalyPlilo de qu_e ella se despojaba de efecto de u hermao.Finalmete mientras que Montinoa y e Exh. C dicen que e pecio total era de P0,00000 el Juzgado h notado que las cifras'0,000.00 en el Eh C demuestn borones Agrgado este deale l eho de que segn sus ibitos (Ehs. 3 4 odo lo querei de! banco en la fe de! oorgmiet de! Eh C el 25 deulo de 1949 ea la suma de P3,000.00, (y da hay e las ]ubasue demuere que haya retiado fondos 6 que· uvier monedcontte suiciete e I· fech del h. B), el Juzgado encuena



398 CORT OF APPEALS REPORTS

Monnoa vs Herboa, et l.

ms creble la declarac6n de osefa Equa de que la cant dad pa·gada pr Montinola el 25 de juo de 949 era de P2,000.00 y no20000.00. De lo cual el Juzado tendr que conclur que pate delExh C adolece de un leraci6n por no decr otr coa Y ohabiendo nada en a preba q\ demuestre que ades de esta•uma entreada l 29 de jio de 949 Montnola hubee pagadootra um 0 um�s y habendo el msmo declarado que el precio<e . 00 en el Exh. B oorgado el 13 d sepembre de 950 noera l a vedad y que el verdadero prec io era de 2000000, la conlusi6n a que el Tribuna necesariamene endr que egr es quee docueno en cuest6n Eh. B se haba frdo pr Doa Tri-ndad ( es que amente se lo haba irmado in baer larcido e precio convenido y que el mencionado dcumento prtanto carec a faltaa de consderac6n. Esta conclus6n est rema-chada pr e dealle de que i fuera verdad que Montinoa era edeo de los objeto en cueti6n y que soamente se haba onveido que Da ridad se os revera en su poes6n mentra

ela viviee habendo e!la falcido el 9 de mayo de 951), e u-gdo no coprende c6mo es que en ning pae de sus pruebase ha deostrado lo que Monnla haba hecho para poderlos recoer por ser uyos inedataente desps de orir Doa Tri-ndad pues SU uerte e publc6 e n los per6dicos (Exh. 1) e hizoel requeriento a los demndados ms de un ao despu de 9d mayo de 195 Eh D 6 sea el 23 de septiembre de 52"(pp. 2279, Record on Appeal)

'

We agree wih he foregoing findings of he rial cour which are boe ou by he records and he evidece

We furher hold ha:·

( ) Exhibi B is a separae and disinc conrac frm Ehibi C, and ha Ehibi B anno sand valid as a

onrac of sale, for he reason ha he saed sale prico .00 for hings wor a leas 2000000 is so insigni·fcan as o amoun o no pric a al is a price ha is"irrisorio acording o he aian ommenaors Whilethe law (Ar 17 now 469, new Civil Code does noquire for he validiy of e conrac of sale ha he price be adeqe i ordain ha he price be real anno ciious. I is obvious ha he price of l0 sae

VO 3 EBRUARY 4, 96 399

ontinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

n Eibi B is no merely grossly inadequae bu ha

s no real ha i is ficiious Neiher can he insru-men (Exhibi B) be onsidered valid as a donaion under� 1471, Civil Code there being no showing ha

'i was

ended a gf

(2) D?a

_ Tri�da� Rizal could no ha ve sold he sx (6 )

z al rec 1ga10n o Enrique P . Moninola on Se p -e ber 13; 1950, because t he alo hol lam p he porai of eonor Ri vera b y Riz al and he painng of Ra b y Jun Lna were hen in he cusod y of her ne p h w Dr

. Arsteo U baldo, and t hree months late s he ga ve said

recs o her o h ne p he w def endana p pllee Esanisao Her bosa w hile he wo o p has remained in he usod y f Dr U bldo uni he deli vered he same o def ndan p pellee Macario Of iana. Doa Trinidad u ed oerirely o said Of iana, he woolen clo hes of Rizal I is o be remem bered ha o a Trinidad Riz al was reared nd �r�d in the honst and honora ble wa ys of our f t hrs,and t s un

. hinka b e

_t hat s he could ha ve been guil y of

d?u bledeal� and ds honesty of deceit and estafa, b y

aenatg agam cetain Rizal relics w hich s h had alread y sold

(3) We gi ve no credence to t he testimon y of the alleged buye platiff -ap pellant Montinola t hat he did not take posession of the six (6) Rizal relics in question becas

oa Trinidad Rizal requested ta s he remain i

n posess10n ereof uring he lietime.(4) E ven i E x hibit B were given eff ect, t he e xecution

of s.a�d pu bli nstruent did not constitute s ym boli

tadt1on because of t he agreemen t hat t he endor Doa Tnidad Rzal, would remain in possession of the

't hings

�old. 1ce, t he bu ye did not acquire owershp, f orIn he c vl. law, o wns hip does not pass by mere consnt b b y radiion

(S)_ , T he action of th lleged vendee, Mntnola, is





Documents

Montinola v. Herbosa