You are on page 1of 14

COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS

376

VOL.

People vs. Bigayan, et al.

El testigo De Leon declara, asimismo, que Valido para

momentos antes y durante el ataque, Vahdo, armada de


un "balisong" le ataco asestando varjas puiialadas que no

La verdad es que De Leon que esta

desarmado no solamente no foe herido sino que no sufno

El testigo De Leon, finalmente, lea que


momentos despues de escaparse de! lugar de! mc1dente,
ni rasguiios.

y despues de haber recorrido dos manzanas, volvio a la


.
.
tend1do
escena de! crimen donde encontro a Hernandez
en el suelo baiiado en su propia sangre.

Si consideramos

cl hecho, como asi aparece en autos, que De Leon regres6


a ]a escena de! crimen sin estar acompaiiado de nadie, Y

sin haber dado parte de! incidente en la estacion de po


iicia

377

Montino/a vs. Herbosa, et al.

impedir que el (De Leon) prestara ayud a Hernandez,

hicieron blanco.

3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963

que solo dista 200 metros de la escena de! crimen,

_
su contenci6n que momentos antes de su regreso Vahdo

armada de un "balisong" le habia atacado y asestado

,arias puiialadas, y que tuvo que darse a la fuga porque


SU Vida estaba en peligro, es ciertamente inconsistente Y
fucra de raz6n.

A Ia vista de las datos expuestos el Tribunal se resiste

a dar credito al tcstimonio de De Leon que Valido armada


de un "balisong", para impedirle que prestara ayuda a

Hernandez, le asesto varias puiialadas, golpes que no hi

de vino ofrecido par Valido que este Tribunal considera

insuficiente para causar intoxicaci6n a aque! (Bigayan).

El juzgado a quo, pues, err6 al considerar a favor de

Bigayan l a circunstancia atenuante de intoxicaci6n.

La

maxima d e la pena indeterminada debe ser en este caso

impuesta en su grado media.

La causa contra Patricio Casem foe sobreseida por el

juzgado a quo a petici6n de! Ministerio Fiscal.

EN

su

VIRTUD, este Tribunal despues de aplicar la :(.ey

de Sentencias Indeterminadas le condena a sufrir la petia


d e un

(1)

afio, un

(1)

mes y diez

correccional, coma minima, a ocho


de prisi6n mayor, coma maxima.

{10)

( 8)

dias de prisi6n

afios y un

(1 )

\lia

Se absuelve al apelante

Benigno Valido de! delito querellado, con Ia mitad de las

costas de oficio. Con la modificaci6n indicada, votamos

par la confinnacion de la decision apelada en cuanto a los


otros respectos, con una mitad de las. costas.

ASI SE ORDENA.
Sanchez y Enriquez, MM., estan con::onnes.
s.e modifica la sentencia.

cicron blanco. El Tribunal, pues, concluye que entretiene

scrias dudas en cuanto a la culpabilidad de! apelante


delito querellado,

Benigno Valido como c6mplice de!

(U.S.

dud: s que deben rescilverse a favor de! apelante.

is.

Lazada, 18 Phil. 90; U.S. vs. Douglas, 2 Phil.

261)

En la imposicion de la pena al apelante, Bibiano Biga

yan, cl juzgado a q110 consider6 a favor de aquel a cir


cunstancia

alenuante de intoxicaci6n porquc B1gayan

habia tornado \ino ofrecido par Valido momentos antes

dcl incidcnte. Hernandez, De Leon y Valido declaran que


cl apclantc Bibiano Bigayan tom6 una pequeiia cantidad

[No. 23022-R.

February 14, 1963]

ENRIQUE p' MONTINOLA, plaintiff and appellant, vs. ESTA


NISLAO HERBOSA and MACARIO OFINA, defendants and

appellces.

l, JUDGIENTS; RIZAL RELICS; JUDGMENT OF INDEMNITY AGAINST


RIZAL AND HIS HEms RENDERED RY THE SPANISH COUNCIL OF
WAR IN DECEMBER, 1896, NO LoNGER ENFORCEABLE; CASE AT
BAR.-In December, 1896, Dr, Jose Rizal \Vas charged before
the Spnnish Council of War \Vith the con1plex crime of found-

..... ..,,

COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS

378

VOL.

Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963

379

Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

ing illegal associations as a means of promoting or inducing


rebellion, and, after a proceeding in which he was denied the
right of confrontation, was convicted and sentenced to death,
and ordered to pay inn indemnity of Pl00,000.00 in favor of
the State, the obligation being transmissible to his heirs. Rizal.

was executed on Dec, 30, 1896, leaving certiJ.in articles litigated


in this action. The trial court held that the judgment of

the vendor would remain in possession of the thing sold, for


in the civil law, ownership does not pass by mere consent but
by tradition.

5, ,ACTIONS;,

RECOVERY

OF POSSESSION

OF

PERSONAL

PROPERTY;

POSSESSION IN Goon F:AITH EQUIVALENT TO TITLE; EVIDENCE.


The possession in good faitli of personal property acquired by
lucrative title is equivalent to a title (Art,

559, Civil Code) ;

indemnity is still enforceable against the estate .and heirs of


Rizal, and that the relics in question belong to the Republic

hence,- in a n action to recover possession of persont;\l property,

of the Philippines bec;ause the said indemnity has never been

. sessor and that he had lost it or had been unlawfully deprived

satisfied, Held: The judgment of indemnity may no longer


be enforced, for the following reasons: (1) History has repu
diated the Spanish charge that Rizal was a traitor, as \Vell
as the validity of the criminal. proceedings _against him. To
enforce the judgment would be to rewrite the verdict of hii:;
tory that Rizal died a hero of the Filipino people; (2) The
charge against Rizal was for a crime with political
plexion.

com

Upon the change of sovereignty and by virtue of

the Treaty of Paris of April 1, 18991 all political acts or acts


with politioal complexion of the Spanish Crown became

ipso

facto null and void; and (3) The judgment was entered more

than 65 years ago,

(Sec, 6, Rule 39, Rules of Court; Art.

1144, Civil Code.)


2. WILLS; RizAL's uULTIMO ADios", NOT A WlLL.-An instrument

which merely expresses a last wish as a thought or advice

but does not contain a disposition of property and was not


executed with
a \vill.

ani11i11s testandi, cannot legally be conside1ed

Rizal's "Ultimo Adios'' is a literary piece of work

and was so intended.

It may be considered a will in the gram

matical sense, but not in the leg:il or juridical sense.


3. SALE; PRICE MUST BE REAL, NOT FICTITIOUS; PRICE OF f'l.00 IN
CASE AT BAR FICTITIOUS.-While Article 1469 of the Civil

Code does not require1 for the validity of a contr:ict of sale,


that the price be adequate, it ordains that the price be real
,.nd not fictitious. Where the things sold are worth r20,ooo.oo,
'
the price of P'l.00 is not merely grossly inadequate, but it is
not real; it is fictitious.

4. ID,; OWNERSHIP PASSES NOT BY MERE CONSENT BUT BY TnADI


TION.-Thc execution of n public instrument of sale does not
constitute syn1bolic tradition \vhcrc there is an agreement that

plaintiff must prove that he was its owner or prior


thereof (Sotto

vs.

pas

Enage, (CA.) 43 O.G., 50 75) .

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance


of Manila.. Gatmaitan, !.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Jose J. Francisco for plaintiff and appellant.


Vicente M.

lao Herbosa.

Magpoc for

defendant and appellee Estanis

Assistant Solicitor General Esmeralda Umaliand Solic


itor Briberto D. Ignacio for defendant and appellee Ma

cario Ofiana.

MR. JUSTICE CAPISTRANO .delivered the opinion of the


Court.
The plaintiff and both defenqants having admitted in
their pleadings that their respective claims of ownership
came from the samt: source, Dona Trinidad Rizal, there
was no question that the Rizal relics were private property.
The trial court, however, seized upon j)laintiff's testimony
that Dona Trinidad had doubted whether she had the right
to sell him the Rizal relics, in order to make the strange
and abruj)t . finding that with respect to the intrinsic
validity of the deed of sale, Exhibit B, there were histori
cal d1;1ta agJlinst the same, which required a narration in
chronological order. of their occurreni;e in December, 1896.
The Court then gave the narration, the highlights of which

COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS

380

VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963

Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

were:

Mrmtinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

The criminal prosecution of Rizal before the

_ encin del Sr. Teniente Coronel Don Jose Togoros


la Presid
.
A Joa, para ver Y fallar la causa instruida -contra Don Jose
_ :
.R1z M.ercado Y Alonzo, .a"cusado de las delitos de rebeli6n

s1c1on Y asocinci6n ilicita, le ha examinad.o con toda deten:

Consejo de Guerra in which he was denied the right of

confrontation; his conviction for the complex crime of


founding illegal associations as the means of promoting
or inducing rebellion; the sentence of death paS$ed upon
him, with the obligation to indemnify the State in the sum
of PJ00,000.00, the obligation being transmissible to his
heirs; the order of Governor General Polavieja approving
the judgment and providing for Rizal's execution by
musketry; the notification to Rizal of the sentence of
death on the 29th of December, 1896; his writing of "Mi
Ultimo Adios" on the eve of his execution; the furtive
delivery of said poem, hidden in an alcohol lamp, to hi;;
sister, Trinidad Rizal, in the morning of the day of execu
tion, December 30, 1896; the aet of execution after which
there were shouts of "Muera el Traidor" while the military
band was playing the Marcha de Cadiz; and the burial of
Rizal's corpse incognito in the soil of Paco, outside the
Catholic cemetery, between an unidentified burnt cadaver
and that of a suicide, recorded as persons who died im
penitents. Said the trial court:

cton Y cuidado, previa la lectura de sus actuaciones hecha


por el Seiir Juez Instructor, vista la acusaci6n fiscal,' oido el
1alegato de defensa y la adici6n a la misma leidn par el acuR
sado, el Consejo de Guerra ordinnrio de plaza declal'a que el
?c ?o perseguido eonstituye Jos delitos de fundar asociaciones
Jl 1c1tas y de promover e inducir p2ra ejccutar el de rebeli6n,
.
.
s1endo el pr1me o media necesario paa cjecutar el segundo;

resultando responsable, en concepto de autor' el procesado

Don Jose Rizal.

'En. su virtud, falla: que debe condenar y condena al !'efe


ridq Don Jose Rizal a In pena de muerte, y en cnso de indulto

Uev ara. consigo, caso de no remitirse especialmente, las ace


_
sor1ns
de inhabilitaci6n ab2oluta perpetua y sujeci6n de Aquel
a la vigilancia de la nutoridad por el tiempo de su vida

de

biendo satisfacer en conr.epto de indemnizaci6n al Esta o la


cantidad de cien mil pesos con la obligaci6n del. tr.ansmitirse
la satisfacci6n

de esta indemnizaci6n a las herederos; todo

con arreglo a las articulos 188, num. 2 en relaci6n con el num.

1 de! 189, y 230 en relaci6n col\ el num. 1 de! 229, 11, 53, 63,
80, 89, 119, 118, nUm. 2, 189, nUm. 1, 229, nUm, 1, 230, 123,
eri relaci6n con el 119, nUm. 3, y-122 y dem5.s de gecral

Dofia Tri"En el curso de su. testimonio, M.ontinola admiti6 que


del
efectos
los
a
venderle
derecho
11idad dudabn de si ella tuviere
Asi
1956).
de
Diciembre
de
6
de!
sesi6n
78,
n.
Dr. Rizal; (t.s.
intrinsica
debia de hnber sucedido, porque en cunnto a la validez
i
clE-1 Exh. B, dates hay en la historin que contradicen tat hecho

aplicaci6n de! C6digo Pnal.


.

'

'Asi lo pronuncia y manda el Consejo de Guerra ordinario

de Plaza, iirm.H.ndola el Presidente y Vocales del Mismo :


Jose

ncontecirnientos que para mn:or clnridad hnce falta relatarlos, si


guiendo el orden cronol6gico de las sucesos del Dicien1bre de 1896.
11El proceso contra el Dr. Rizal se inici6 cl 30 de Noviembre del

Togoros

Fern1in

Perez

Braulo

Rodriguez-Nufiez-Ricardo

Rodriguez-Manuel

Escribano-Santiago Izquierdo.'
fael Palma) ;

mis1no ar.o; despues del sumario e interrogatoria, durntc:i las cualcs


ua se le concedi6 el derecho de cncararsc con las testigos de la
acusaci6n, ni fue notificado de la presentaci6n de los infarn1es1 el
Ccnsejo de Guerra le impusa In siguiente sentencia el 26 de Diciem

I\-luii.oz

Roguera-Manuel

Diaz,

(Biografia de Rizal por Ra

La sentencia condenatoria arriba acotada fue recibida par el Go


bE!rnador General y aprobada par el mismo por media
del siguiente
.
dictamen:

bre de 1896:
'
'En la plaza de Manila, a las veintiseis dlas del mes de
Dicicmbr-e de n1il ochocientas noveritll y seis, reunido el Con

sejo de Guerra ordinario de plaza ce!ebrado en este dia bajo

381

'Maniia, 28 de diciembre de 1896.-Conforme con el nterior

dictamen,

aprueba

Ia

sentencia

dictadn par

el

Consejo

de

Guerra ordinarJo de plaza en la presente causa, en virtud de

. .

382

VOL. 3, FEBRUARY

COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS

la. cnal se impone la pena de muerte al reo JosE RIZAL MER

CADO, la que se ejecutarU pastlndole por las armas a las siete

de la mniiana del din treinta del ac tunl en el campo de Bagum


bayan, y con las formalidades que la ley previene.-P.ara su

cumplimiento y demRs que corresponda, welva al Juez Instruc

(Id. p. 322).

CAMILO G. DE POLAVIEJA.'

en la
y se le notific6 de la mismn al reo en el memento de recluirle
la
de
dia
del
vispera
la
en
capilla de la Fuerza de S:antiago; que
s
en
estando
e,
diciembr
29
de
el
sea_
o
a
ejecuci6n de la sentenci
d b1l
de

celda y en I.a completa oscuridad de lri. nae he, a la luz


.
Ult1mo
su
compuso
Rizal
Dr.
el
celda
la
a
,
iluminab
que
illimpara
( be
Adi6s.' segtin las obrns de Rafael P.alma y de Romiin Ozaeta.
r1 d1co
e
;
como
o
aceptad
sido
ha
o
notarse que el nrticulo del segund
e scon

fu
nto
docume
el
y
ana
23:556;
Americ
par la Enciclopedia
.
de! dia s1guiente ,
dido en Ja Jampa rilla hist6rica.) En la madrugada
el
30 de dicie n1bre, y antes de empezar la marcha a }a Luneta,
her
la lan1parilla a s.
Dr Rizal tuvo la oportunidad de entregar
lalgo dentro i por
habia
que
Ingles
en
ola
diciend
ad,
ma a Trinid
.
la poster1dad; Uega o
esc medio, el 'Ultimo Adios' fue salvado para
s que iban n ejec.utnr la sente c1a
el grupo del reo y de los soldado

oi el Dr. Rznl
en la LunetaI a la hora fijada, se consurni6 el sacrifici
de 'Muera
gr1tos
de
seguida
fue fusilado; Ia cnida de su cuerpo fue
a de
'March
}a
de
sonido
del
y
os,
cl Traidor' de algunos re1igios

each
el.
por
o
recogid
ue
f
r
cadave
;
el
Ctidiz' por la banda militar
fu
donde
P.aco,
de
rio
cemente
al
silencio
furg6n y Jlevado en
fue:
enterrado en tierra, fuera del cementerio Cat6lico; el muerto
no pudo ser identifi
que
zado
carboni
cadaver
un
entre
do
deposita
fue nnotad a en
;cado y otro que rnuri6 coma suicida y la muerte
.
.
'
# # (Ill
en1 tentes;
una hoja especial de personas que mur1eron 1mp

383

Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

Montinola vs. H erbosa, et al.

tor, Capitan D. Rafael Dominguez.

14, 1963

superior to the rights of plaintiff or his predecessor-in


interest and of any and all other persons
whomsoever.

Said the triiil court:


"*

We have no quarrel with the narration as facts of

history, but we find error in the adoption by the trial

court of the foregoing historical events as its own findings


to support its conclusion that the Consejo de Guerra's
judgment of indemnity against Rizal was, and still is,

valid 'J.ild enforceagle, and that in view of said judgment,


the State now has a lien and rights over all Rizal relics

en cuanto Jal caudal que huniese dejado, debe decirse que


bienes

relictos, puesto

que

coma ya se .ha relatado la sentencin condenatoria le impuso ademii.s

contra el la multa de Pl00,000.00. y l a obligaci<in de satisfacerse el


pago de esa cantidad, segUn prescribia el fallo, se impuso iriclu
sive a sus herederos, y la historia no dice que la multa haya sido
satisfecha; Y sus pari entes asi debieron de haberlo con1prendido
que l Dr. Rizal no les habia dejado bienes de su propiedad, tanto

qlle seglln el bi6grafo Wenceslao Retana (Vida y Escritos, p, 455),

los padres del Dr. Rizal para poder conseguir siquiera una reliquia
de su hijo, tuvieron que escribir la siguiente carta al Juez Sr. Do

n1inguez, el 27 de en ero, 1897:

'Sefior Juez Instructor:Francisco Rizal Mercado y Teodora Alonzo avecintlados d e


esta capital, padres del difunto Jose R-iznl, a Vd , como mejor
proceda nos presentamos y exponemos:

1;1

no podia haberse dej,ado lega..lmente

Que nuestro hijo en su muerte dej6 entre otras cosas u n


juego de botones d e oro y u n alfiler d e c orbata , y desea n do
teneros coma recuerdo suyO dichos objetos, suplicamos a Vd.

se :sirva hacer todo lo posible para que consigarnos nuestro


deseo, y siendo asi, cuanto agradeceriarnos

1a.

Vd, Gracia que

imPioramos a Vd. cuya vida gl1arde Dias n1uchos aiios.'

De los menciqnados sucesos hist6ricos que no pueden ser ignorados,

el Juzgado encuentra (iue si el IDr. Rizal hubiera dejndo bienes de


alguna clase, los mismos se encontrarin'n sujetos al gravamen sU.pe

rior del Estado par el pago de la multa de '"100,000.00; obligaci6n


que se impusc> .inclusive a sus herederos, de suerte que

l a luz de

la deeisi6n de la Corte Suprema en El Gobierno de Filipinas contra.


El Hagar Filipino,

35 Jur. Fil., 728, esa obligaci6n sobre la multa

venta. a ser una espe cie de fideicomiso establecido a favor del anti

g'o soberano, adquirido par los Estados Unidos al firmarse el


Tratado de Paris, e} diciembre de 1898, y transferido a Filipinas
por operaci6n de la Lf:!Y de lndependencia de

1934, dando por re

sultado de que ninguna otra persona, ni el mismo d emandante, sino

.solaente el Esta.do pudiese rec.Jamar derecho preferente sabre esos


bienes.

Tan1poco podria alegarse

el ?'.l

f.' . .

I;

1; ;J.a

!1 :3".
:!

que el demandante o su ante-

384

VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963

COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS

385

Montinola vs. H erbosa, et al.

Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

indei ty a ainst the Rizal relics, aside from being le


?
gally lposs ble, would be to rewrite the verdict of history

that Rizal died a hero of the Filipino people.

cesora tuviern titulo de propiedad adquirido por su largn posesi6n


puesto que no puede ganarse el dominio par prescripci6n en contra
clel derecho superior del Estndo.''

The trial court went further and held that the.Rizal


relics in litigation were property of the State from a dif
erent point of view, to wit, that Rizal's "Ultimo Adios"
is a holographic will. The lower court' s reasoning is as
follows:

Historical records show that Rizal's execution sparked the


Filipino revolution against Spain. We recall the immortal
words of the great Filipino poet, Cecilio Apostol, on
Rizal's execution: "Si una bala destroz6 tu craneo tam
bien tu idea destroz6 un imperio." After the overthrow
of the Spanish regime and the defeat of Filipino arms by
the Americans, the Americ:an regime did not move for the
execution of the judgment' against Rizal and his heirs with
respect to the indemnity; instead, the American regime,
in accord with the sentiment of the Filipino people, ele
vated Rizal to the seat of the martyr. Thus, Rizal became
our greatest national hero and has remdned so for a
period of more than sixty years todate, comprising the
American regime, the Commonwealth period, and the
Republic era. History has thus repudiated the Spanish
charge that Rizal was a traitor, as well as the validity o f
the criminal proceeding against Rizal in which he was
denied the right of confrontation, of the Spanish sentence
of death and the execution of Rizal, and of the judgment
against Rizal and his heirs to pay the State, then repre
sented by the Spanish government, the sum of !'100,000.00
as indemnity. To say now, as the trial court has, that the
judgment of indemnity against Rizal and his heirs was,
and still is, valid and enforceable, is error. Such holding
is a repudiation of the verdict of history in favor of Rizal.

"Par lo demaS, si

existieren todavia sabre Ia exactitud

'Adi6s, Patria adorada, regi6n dr sol querida'


Perla del Mar de Oriente, nuestro perdido eden

'

A daz:te voy alegre, la triste, mustia vida;


y fuern mas brillante, mas fresca, nuis florida'

'na.mbien por ti la diera, la diern par tu bien.

'En campos de batalle, luchando con delirio1

Otros te dan sus Vidas, sin dudas sin pesar.


El sitio nada importa; cipres, laurel 6 Iirio,
Cadalso 6 ca1npo abierto, combatc 6 cru"el martirio'

Lo mismo es si fo pidcn la Patria y el hoi:ar.

'Yo muero, cuando veo que el cielo se colora


.
Y al fin anuncla el dia, tras l6bl'ego capuz 1
Si grana necesitas, para tefiir tu aurora
. JVierte la sangre mia,

derrB.mala en bu n hara'

Y d6rela un reflejo de su naciente luz!

'}!is suefios, cuandc apenas muchacho adolcscente'


suefios cuando joven, ya Beno de vigor,

ru_:is

Fueron el verte un din, joya dcl Mar de Oriente'


SecJs las ncgrus ojos, alta la tcrsa frcr.te,
Sin cefio, sin arrugas, f:in n1anchas de rubor.
'Ensueiio de mi vida, mi ardicntc vivo nnhelo 1

It is error to hold that the judgment of the Spanish


Countil of War is still enforceable against the estate and
heirs of Rizal, and that the relics in question belong to
the Republic of the Philippines because the adjudged
indemnity of 1'100,000.00 has never been satisfied. To
sustain the enforcement of the Spanish judgment of the
'ti ..
:.Ji
. .. fl

dudaS

de .la recedente s uci6n, otra via de argumentaci6n .nos llevaria


a la mJsma conclusion. La poesia hist6rii?a reza asi:

i Salud ! te grita el alma, que pronto va a. partir

I Salud ! ah, que es hermoso caer por dartc vuel

Morir po.r darte vida, morir bajo tu cielo,


Y en tu encantada tier11a la eternidad dormir !
. ,

'Si sobre mi sepulcro vieres brotar, un dia,


Entre la espesa yerba sencilla humi1de flor,

'-

, _,,'

..,

'

386

COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS

VOL.

Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

3,

FEBRUARY

14, 1963

387

Mon tinola vs. Herbosa, e t al.

Acercala a tus labios y besa el alma mia,

Dad gracias, que dcscnnso del fatigoso din;

y sienta yo en mi frente, bajo la tumba fria,

Adi6s, dule extraujera, mi amiga, mi -alegria;

De' tu temura el soplo, de tu hiilito el calor.

Adi6s, queridos seres.

'Deja a la luna verm con luz tranquila y suave;

Deja que el alba envie su resplendor .fugaz;


Deja gemir al viertto, con su murmullo gr
- ave;

Morir es descansar.'

S e nota1a que en la estancia

te dejo todo".

13 (1), el Dr, Rizal escrlblo: "Ahl

No cabe discutir que el pronombre "te" se referia


e. la Patria; asi debe de entenderae esa estancia, tal como se en
tendia durante el Gobiarno Revolucionario puesto que en )os afios

Y si desciendc y posa sabre mi cruz un ave,


Deja que el ave entone su cB.ntico d paz.

1?98

1Deja que el sol, ardiendo, las lluvias evapore


Y a l cielo tornen puras, con mi clamor en pas i

1899, la raduccion corriente de la poesia al Tagalol era lo

s1gulente, es dec1r, la estancia referida:

D.ejn que un ser amigo. mi fin tetiiprano llore;

'Sintang Pilipinas, lupa kong hinirang

Y en las serenas tardes,. cuando par nll alguien ore;

Sakit na sakit ko, ngayon ay pakinggan .l

Ora tambien, oh Patria, par mi descanso a Dias.

Huling paalam ko't Sa iyo'y iiwan

Ora por todos cuantos murieron sin ventra;

Ang lahat at madlang inirog sa buhy.'

Par cuantos padccieron tormentos sin igual;

Y al Ingles por Charles Derbyshire ha sido traducida esta

Par nuestras pobres madres, que gimen su amargura;

parte

como sigue:

Por huerfanos y viudns, por presos en tortura,


Y ora i:or ti, que veas tu redenci6n final.

My fatherland adored, that sadness to my sorrow lends

'Y cuando en noche oscura se envuelva el cementerio,


Y solos s6lo muertos queUen velando alU,

Beloved Filipinas, hear now my last good-bye!


I give thee all, parents and kindred and friends;

No turbes su repoSo, no turbes el misterio;

For I go where no slave before the


. oppressor bends
Where faith can never kill and God 11eigns o'er on high!'

Tal vcz acordes oigas de citara o salterio;

Soy yo, querida Patria, yo que te canto a ti,

lo cual indica fuera

de toda du.da racional de que el Dr. Rizal

1y cuando ya mi tumba, de todos olvidada,


No tenga cruz ni piedra que marquen su luger,

habria deseado que todo lo que hubiera de dejar seria hcredado por
la Patria, la poesia venia a ser la expresi6n de que el documento

Y mis cenizas, antes que vuelvan a la nada

su aar8cter ju1i4ico, de que era un testamento (Tolentino III: 26);


Y por estar escrito de s u pufio y letra. debe ser su testamento

Dejn que la are el hombi'e, la esparza con la azada,

expusiese sus miis profundos sentimientos no quita ni hace perder

El polvo de tu alfombra que vayan a formar.

1Entonces nada in1porta me pongas en olvido;

ol6grafo, valido bajo la legis!aci6n entonces vigente (Axt.

Tu atm6sfera, tu espacio, tus valles cruzare;


Vibrante y Jimpia nota sere para tu oido;
Aroma, luz, colores, rumor, canto, gemido,

688 CC

de Espaiia).
Si cabe alegar en cohtra de su validez de qu no
ex_presaba el ufio, mes y dia de su otorgamiento ni Uevaba su firma

tal coma se requeria en la ley arriba citada, tambien debe decirse


que hay jurisprudencia (Manresa V: 534) que dice que tales re

Constante repitiendo la esencin de mi fe.

' 'Mi pntrio. idolntrada, dolor de mis dolores,


Querida Filipinas, oye el postrer adi6s.

quis,tos

pueden considerarse satisfechos

si las mismos

deducirse del cuerpo mismo del testamento, y en

Ahi te dejo todo: mis padres, mis amores,

cuanto

pueden
a cste.

punto, tampoco puede .disputarse que las versos de la poesia hist6-

Voy donde no hay eoolavos, verdugos ni opresoresj

rica, puestos en co1Te)aci6n con las sucesos ya referidos, no pueden


menos de justificar la conclusion de que el documento se escribi6

Donde la fe no mata, donde el que reina es Dio:i.

'Adi6s, padres y hermanos, trozos del alma mia,

en la vispera .del dia del fusilamiento.

Amigos de la infancia, en el perdido hogar;

l Por Jose Gntmaytan.

(,;
Wil "1

' :" ';

,,
-

En cuanto a la firma, la

VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963

COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS

".;'

. '388

Montinola
decision de

Jl1eii.cionada

in

vs.

Herbosa,

Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

et al.

Corte Suprema de Espana de! 8 de Juni de 1918,


.
(\r: 533) indica que este requ1s1to _puede

por Manresa

die 'tcm: Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea, et supervestem meam

miserunt sortem.

decirse. cumplido si se puede identificiir 'al autor por . 1os term1nos


del mismo documento; aparte de que e1a una imposibilidad para
el Dr. Rizal el haberlo firmado debidamente, porque precisamente

se lo escondia de las autoriciades; y si se dijera de que el docun1ento


nunca lleg6 a presentarse a los Tribunales de Justicia para su
protocolizaci6n dentro de los cincp afios despues de la muerte del

testador, tal como se prescribe en el Art 689 del C6digo Civil de


Espafia, contra este argurnento se podr8. alegar de que la protoco
lizaci6n no se requiere por ese cuerpo legal como condici6n indis
pensable pnra la adquisici6n de la propiedad par medio de un tes
tamento, como asi se requiere bajo el presente C6digo Civil de

A -la verdad, desde 1.a aprobaci6n de la ley nUmero 2645,


la prot.ocolizaci6n del testamento se requeTia en la legislaci6n an
Sabre
terioT, solamente paTa servir de prueba de autentiCidad.
discute
demandante,
mismo
el
ni
Filipinas,
en
nadie
cuesti6n,
esta

Filipinas.

y alega que el 'Ultimo Adi6s' fuese. abra ap6crifa del Di. Rizal i

al contrario, ln demanda de autos debe interpTetarse en el sentido


de que admite su autenticidad. La poesia como expresi6n de la

Ultima voluntad del Dr. Rizal ya ha sido protocolizada por la his


toria. y habiendo el heroe mandado que a Filipinas se debia de

dejar todo lo que tenia, y siendo esa una v8.lida disposici6n par
cuanto que el Dr. Rizal no habia dejado herederos forzosos se

importe la conclusi6n de que al demandante no debe de adjudicarse


la posesi6n de Ins reliquias en cuesti6n.

En resumcn, tanto las

pruebas con10 la misma historia son cadversas al demandante.

Po1

otra pa"rte, antes de dejar estc mundo para pasar a la otTa vid
11donde la ie no n1ata y cl que reina .es Dios", el Dr. Riz:sl habia

dispuesto que esas reliquias paia siempre fuesen de la propiedad


de Fiipinas.

389

Y en estos tiempos cua


. ndo vemos renacer las enfer

medades similares a las del siglo pasado: la vida egoista y vanidasa

tle los rices, la miseria de .los p0Qres1 el civismo artificia.11 las inge

rencias c\e la coi::tumbre y del extranjero, to.nto que, no parece sino

que la ensefianza de RiZJ.9.l ya se ha puesto en olvida por la marcha

inexoiable de los afios, bueno es, que esas reliquias se conserven

para fa posteridad; y no se baga repetir el pasaje 7obTe la Tepar


tici6n de las rop:as del Seiiar:

'Postquam a;tem crucifiXerunt eum, diviserunt vestinienta ejus,

sorten1 n1ittentes f ut in1pleretur quad dictun1 est per Prop}letan..

Despues que le hubieron crucificado, repar..

tieron entre si sus vestidos, echando uertes; con esto se cum


pli6 . la profecia que dice: Repartieron entre si mis vestidos,
y sortearon mi tUnica.'
(Matt. XXVll: 36)

pa que las ensefianzas de Rizal sirven de recuerdo imperecedero

dcl sufrimiento y sacrificio supremo del hCroe,. para las generaCiones


par venir!'
,

It is apparent that the law was given a strained inter


pretation.
Rizal's "Ultimo Adios" is a literary piece of work and
was so intended. If it were intended as a will the poem
would have been entitled "Ultima Voluntad" and not
"Ultimo Adios." The words:

"Ahi, te dejo todo, mis padres,


mis amores",

in the third line of the 13th stanza of the poem, merely


express a thought of parting, not of bequeathing. Besides,
Rizal at that time has no known property worthwhile
bequeathing to his beloved Philippines or to which his
country could" be instituted as heir. It is also i:o be noted
that the word "dejo" whose English equivalent is "leave"
was, :;ipparently, wrongly translated into "give" by Charles
Derbyshire, whose English version of "Ahi, te dejo todo,
mis padres, mis amores'' is, "To thee I give all, my parents,
'
my kindred and friends''
An instrument which merely expresses a last wish as a
thought or advice but does not contain a disposition of
property and was not executed with animus testandi,
cannot legally be considered a will. Such instrument, like
Rizal's "Ultimo Adios", may be considered a will in the
grammatical sense, but not in the legal or juridical sense.
The_ mandatory provisions of the Spanish Civil Code
of 1889 on holographic wills, the imperative application
.

VOL.

COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS

390

court by g1vmg the


of which was evaded by the trial
, are as follows:
etation
sa me a strained and alien interpr
688. Holographic ,vills can only be executed by persons of

full age.

mp. ed

In order that the will b_e valid it must be drawn n s


_
paper corresponding to the year of its execution, written

its

entirety by the testator and signed by him, and must contain a


statement of the year, month and day of its execution.
If it should contain any erased, corrected, or interlined words,
the testator must identify them over his signature.
Foreigners may execute holographic wills in their own language.''
"ART.

689. Holographic wills must be protocoled and shall be

presented for this purpose to the judge of first instance of the


Jo.st domicile of the testator, or to the one of the place where he
.
With

died within five years from the day of the testator: s death.
out this requisite it shall not be valid."

Assuming arg uendo that Rizal's "Ultimo Adi6s", -partic


ularly the third line of the 13th stanza, was a holographic
will the non-compliance with the foregoing mandatory
pro isions of the Spanish Civil Code rendered the will
worthless.
The trial court lastly held that if Rizal had left any
property the same i5 still subject to the superior lien of
the State for the payment of the Spanish judginent of
e
indemnity for l'lOD,000.00 against him and his heirs.
h
Spams
the
cannot sustain this holding. The charge of
Crown against Rizal was for a crime with political com
plexion, for "founding i'uicit associations", as means
that
of inciting or inducing rebellion. It is a legal axiom
a_cts
or
ts
a
al
politic
c;
upon a change of sovereignty, all
with political complexion become n\lll and vmd.
Pollard vs.
The Supreme Court of the United States in
Suprem Court
Hagan ( 1845), 3 How., 210, quoted by the
43 Phil. 887,
of the Philippines in People vs. Perf'.ecto,

..

said:

391

Montinola vs. Herbosa, e t al.

Mont inola vs. Herbosa, et al.

"A.RT.

3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963

"*

\'I

It cannot be admitted that the King o f Spain could by

ti:eaty or ot!ierwise, impart to the United States any of his royal


prerogatives;" much less can it be admitted that they have capacity
to receive or power to exe:rcise them.

Every nation acquiring ter

ritory, by treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject

to

the Consti

tution and laws of its own government, and not according to those
of the government ceding it."

The furidamental principles for the protection of the life,


liberty and property of the individual "which are the basis
of all free governments" and upon which the American
nation was built, acted as a restriction upon the exercise
of the authority of Congress over the' Philippines. (Balzac
vs. Puerto Rico, 258, U.S. 298, 66 L. ed. 627). Conse
quently, such crimes as Iese majeste and scandalum
magnatum, offenses committed against the high officials
of the Government of the Crown, were crowded out of this
jurisdiction upon the effectivity of the Treaty of Paris.
It follows that upon the change of sovereignty and by
virtue of the Treaty of Paris on April 1, 1899, which
ceded the Philippines to the United States of America,
all political acts or. acts with political complexion of the
Spanish Crown, the former sovereign, including the afore
stated judgment of the Consejo de G uerra against Rizal,
became fpso facto null and void:
It is now also legally impossible to enforce the judgment
of indemnity against the Rizal relics, for under Sec. 6,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, and Art. 1144 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines, a _judgment can be enforced by
motion within 5 years from the date of _its entry, and
thereafter within a period of 10 years by an ordinary
action, provided it has not been barred by the statute of
limitations. The judgment in question having been en
tered more than 65 years ago is no longer enforceable
and cannot be revived legally.
The appellant cont\onds that he acquired ownership of
the six Rizal relics in litigation by pu_rchase from Dofia

39i

COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS


Montinola

VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963


Montino/a

vs. Herbosa, et al.

Trinidad Rizal by means of the public instrument of sale,


ExhibifB. The Rizal relics in litigation are the following:
!. The alcohol lamp wherein the poem "Mi Ultimo
Adi6s" was hidden;
2. The original painting of Rizal in oil by Juan Luna;
3. The original crayon painting of Leonor Rivera by
Rizal;
4. A silver pen of Rizal which he won as first prize in
a Ji terary con test;
5. The woolen clothes of Rizal which he wore in Europe
and America; and
6. The two top hats of Riz:i.l.

3. Una caja
.

6.
6.

reunidas

par

mi

iB92 a l

Sibi!a Comana

de! Dr. Jose Rizal;

(Cuestionario)

r. Jose Rizal en

su pufio y Ietra;

B Un,i;i .. larga-vista de aluminio del Dr. Jose Rizal, con las


:

..
"J .R." y "Landres 1888";
1n1c1ales

9. Algunas sabres con sellas d_cl nr. Jose Rizal; etc.;


10. Un par de pesas de hierro de! Dr. Jose Rizal;
1. Pintura en Oleo cuando yo (Trinidad Rizal) era joven;
12, LB.mpara d e 1alcohol donde se ha aguardado 'Mi Ultimo
Adi6s' del Dr. Jose Rizal;

13. Pluma de plata coma primer premio de un certamen del


Dr. Jose Rizal;

14. Toda la ropa de la.na y dos chisteras del Dr. Jose Rizal;

etc.;

15. El "original en Oleo del Dr. Jose Rizal par el pintor Juan
16. El origin.al de Marfa Clara en crayon por el Dr. Jose Rizal.
: L, firmo la presente en la Ciudad
EN. TESTIMONI-0 DE LO CUA

de Manila, I .F., hoy 13 de Septiembre de

EN PRESENCIA DE:

'

Sr. ENRIQUE P. MONTI-.

NOLA, filipino, mayor de edad, soltero, y tambien vecino de la

.
.

Giudnd de Manila, I. F., VENDO, CEDO, Y TRASPASO al dicho

1950.

(Sgd.) TRINIDAD RIZAL

moneda filipina, que en este acto he

Luna;

QUE YO, TRINIDA.D RIZAL, soltera, Filipino,, mayor de edad,

(Sgd.)

VALENTIN G. MONTES

(Sgd.)

ERIBERTO D. CORDON

TIEPiiBLICA DE FILIPINAS)

Sr. ENRIQUE P. MONTJNOLA sus herederos y causahabientes,

CIUDD DE MANILA)

las siguientes a1ticulos personales de mi hermano, Dr. Jos Rizal,

S.S.

n la Ciudad de Manila, I. F., hoy a 13 de

que n1e ha dejado coma herederU::

nnte mi, el infrascrito notario ptiblico,

(90) ca1tas. de mi hermano1 Dr, Jose Rizal,

Septiembre,

pcrsonalmente

1950,

compareci6

iDa ..Trinidad Rizal, sin certificado de residencia par razon de su

algunas de ellas sin firma, todas en su puo y letrn; etc. ;

edad, a quien day fe de conocel' par ser la misma

2. Una caja optical para graduar gafas, de mi hermano,


Dr. Jose Riznl1 etc.;

caracoles

Diccion rio Espaiiol con las iniciales "J .R.";

7. Poemas del

y vecina de la Ciudad de Manila, I.F., por y en consideraci6n a

1. Unas noventa.

de

4. Un album de familia de! Dr. Jose Rizal, fechado en Londres el 15 de Junio de 1888, etc.;

SEPAN TODOS LOS QUE LA PRESENTE VIEREN:

recibido a mi ontera satisfacci6n de!

colecci6n

1896; etc.;

"ESCRITURA DE VENTA

(Pl. 00) ,

Herbosa, et al.

hermano, Dr. Jose Rizal, en Dapit.an, entre las aiios

Exhibit B entitled "Escritura de Venta" enumerates


and describes sixteen Rizal relics allegedly sold by Dofia
Trinidad to Enrique P. Montinola for the price of l'l.OD.
The instrument of sale was notarized by Notary Public
M. D. Melotindes in and for the City of Manila on Septem
ber 13, 1950, the same date of its supposed execution by
Dofia Trinidad Rizal. It reads:

la sum a de UN PESO

de

vs.

393

persona que

otorg6 el precedente documento de venta, y ratific6 ser al mismo


un acto de su libre voluntad y otorgamiento .

. .

.: .

'

COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS

394

al.
Montinola vs. Herbosa, et

VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963


Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

mento en el lugar
cual, fir mo y sello este docu
En testimonio de lo
.
s m s arr1ba.
y fee.ha mencionado
ES
(Sgd.) M. D. MELOT!ND

Notari Public

de 1951
Hasta el 31 de Diciembre
Reg. Not. No. 172
Pag. No. 94
Libro No. I
Serie de 1950."

private inst::umer:t_, . xd
According to appellant, the prior
ed by Dona Tnm. a 1
hibit c, dated July 25, 1949, sign
,000.00 of all the R1za
Rizal stated the true price of 1'20
to him and enumerated
rellc; sold by Dofia Trinidad Rizal
in Exhibit B. Exhibit C states:
"RECIBO
Jose Rizal
y0 hermann. manor de1 Dr

del
y heredera principal
.
Don
m; a1r11go lilfimo

.
PASO a favor de
s o CEDO, VENDO y TRAS
de m1
ientes articulos personales
r q e p. ?liontinola los sigu
Rizal:
difunto hermano el Dr. Jose
t

LES DEL DR. JOSE RIZAL;

PERSONA
1 ' VEINTIOCHO CARTAS
RIZAL;
GRADUAR LOS OJOS DE DR. JOSE
PARA
CAL
OPTI
CAJA
2. UNA
FECHADO EN LONILIA DEL DR. JOSE RIZAL,
3 UN ALBUM DE FAM
1888 i
,
VIERNES, 15 DE JUNIO DE

4.

DRES EL
DR.
.
CARACOLES REUNIDAS POR EL
"A DE COLECCI6N DE
UNA c
.
.
EL 23 DE FEBRERO DE J.896
J'OSE RIZAL EN DAPITAN

.
Manila, 25 de julio de 1949

{Preclo Total
Recibido:
P20,000.00)

(Sgd.)
(Sg d.)

II

MALAYA F. PALILEO

Testigo

TRINIDAD RIZAL

(Vendedo1a)

(Sgd.) J. cnuz.
Testigo"

395

Appellant also alleged that upon the execution of Exh. B,


he took possession of all the things sold, except the six
( 6) relics in question which, upon Dofia Trinidad's re
quest, were left in her possession until her death. Dofia
Trinidad Rizal died on May 9, 1951.
Defendant-appellee Estanislao Herbosa, nephew of Dofia
Trinidall Rizal, admits that he has in his possession the
following three (3) Rizal relics in litigation:
1. The alcohol lamp where Rizal hid his poem "Mi
Ultimo Adi6s";
2. The original painting of Rizal by Juan Luna; and
3. The original crayon painting of Leonor Rivera by
Rizal. .
He claims that the alcohol lamp was given to him by his
aunt, Dofia Trinidad Rizal; that he took said lamp from
Dr. Ubaldo who was then in possession thereof, sometime
in the last month of 1950 or the first month of 1951;
that in compliance with Dofia Trinidad Rizal's last wish,
he lighted the alcohol lamp beside her bi<r as shown in
the "Satur.day Mirror" pictorial of May 13, 1951, Exh. l;
that the crayon painting of Leonor Rivera was likewise
given to him by Dofia Trinidad in the middle of 1950
together with the painting of Rizal by Juan Luna because,
according to Dofia Trinidad, tee two paintings should not
be separated.
Defendant-appell.ee Macario Ofiana claims that nn June
19, 1950, at the inauguration of the reconstructed Calamba
family home of Rizal, then President Quirino of the Phil
ippines verbally directed Luis Montilla, Director of the
National Library and Chairman of the Philippine Histo
rical Committee, to retrieve and collect all the furniture
and relics left by Rizal. Acting on said directive, Director
Montilla requested appellee Ofiana, then Secretary of the
Committee, to gather and take possession of the scattered
'

396

COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS

VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963

Mo11tinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

Montinola vs. H erbosa, et al.


1949, fecha del Exh. C, ya hubiese convenido con Dofia Trinidad

furniture and relics left by the national hero from the


surviving members of Rizal's family in Manila and the
nearby provinces. As soon as appellee Ofiana acquired
said relics and other personal property lett by the hero,
he deposited them at the Rizal Shrine at Fort Santiago.
Appellee Ofiana admitted that among the relics ths de
posited by him at the Shrine are the hero's twC> top hats
delivered by the hero's nephew, Dr. Ubaldo, and the
woolen clothes delivered by his sister Dona Trinidad Rizal,
but denied having received the silver pen which Rizal had
won as first prize in a literary contest. Appellant Ofiana
made an inventory of all the Rizal relics in his custody
for the Committee, marked Exhibits 1-0fiana, 1-A to
1-K, inclusive. Director Montilla made a formal repor.t
to the President of the Philippines of the work of the
Committee in charge of the gathering and collection of
the hero's mementos and memorabilia, which were in
stalled in Fort Santiago as part of the permanent
Rizaliana exhibits. The furniture remained in the Rizal
family home at Calamba.
The court a quo refused to give effect to Exhibit B in
relation to Exhibit C of plaintiff-appellant because of
certain circumstances which strongly militated against
the validity and efficacy of Exhibit B, and affected the
integrity thereof. The trial court said:

dt: que la. compra oabarcaba todas las 16 partidas consignadas en

el otro documento, Exh, B,

el Juzgado enc.uentra incomprensible

c6mo es que en aquel primer doc.umento Exh. C, no se menciona

que la veiita real y verdade11amente incluye todas .aquellas 16 par

tdas; pues, -no existia raz6n alguna que justificara la omisi6n d e


las doce

(12) partidas que fueron suprimidas.

E l Juzgado tam

bien encuentra bastante n.normat que el comprador hubiese permi


tido qlle Ia parte de mas valor, de las efectos que habia comprado,
Y.g. la lampa1illa de alcohol, tuviera que quedarse en posesi6n d e
la vendedora.

Y s i Montinola dice que eso s e debe a

que Dofia

Trinidad no queria despojarse de esas reliquias mientras ella

vi

viese,-que es, par cierto, buena explicaci6n-, el Juzgado no com


prende. el par que Montinola. no exigiese siquiera una nota al efecto

de que Doiia Trinidad retenia parte de


se

ios

efectos vendidos.

Y no

dig!\ que este requerimiento seria dcficil, y a l a. vez violento,

. par el respeto que Montinola tenia a la vendedora, porque. par 10s


nlismos Exhs. B y C, v:emos que apesar de ese aprecio, Montinola
al fin Y al cabo, pidi6 o dej6 que sc otorgara el documento d e

venta a su .favor.

AdemE.s, si coma Montinola dice, que el precio

total de la venta de las

16 partidas era de P20,000.00 y que el lo

habfa satisfecho, pagando parte de ello el julio de 1949 al otor

garse el primer documento, Exh. C, (no dice cuanto) y entregando

de la fecha de!
1r de Septiembre de 1950, el Juz

cl restante en la fecha e inmediatamente antes


segundo doc.umento, Exh. B, el

gado no comprende el par que tuviera qtie dec1rse en el segundo


documento de que el precio era solamente de un peso

(Pl.00).

Y si

dice :MO!Jtinola que Csto se hizo porque !Dofia Ti;nidad no queria


ue se publicara la venta de las reliquiras dei heroe, su explicaci6n
viene en pugna con e Exh. C, el primer documento, porque no bay
euesti6n de que en aquel documento

11Examinadas las pruebas, el Juzgado encuentra que 1n causa del

Doii.a Trinidad hizo piiblico

ante los testigos de ra "Citada venta, siendo uno de ellos Malaya

demandante esta sostenida par un documento notaria Exh. B; Y

Palileo, de qu_e ella

por el testimonio del Notario PUblico Sr. Manuel D, Melotindes.


Est<0 por un lado; por otro la.do, el Juzgado ha notado que el docu

Finalmente, mientras

se despojaba de las efectos de su hermano.


que Montinola

el

Exh.

precio total era de

C dicen que el

P20,000.00, el Juzgado ha notado que las cifras


'P20,000.00' en el Exh. C, demuestran borrones, Agregado este de
talle al heeho de que segun sus libritos (Exhs. 3 y 4) todo lo que
retiro de! banco e n la feeha de! otorgamiento de! Exh. C, el 25 de
jullo de 1949 era l a suma de P3,000.00, (y nada hay en las ]lruebas

n1ento en cuesti6n es duplicado al carb6n y no es el original, aunque


lleva la firma de la vendedora; pero la actuaci6n del Notal'io que
lo hlabia ratificado, deja alga que desear porque la copia oficial
que tenia y que no la present6 al Juzgado como asi requiere la ley
dentro del mes de la ratificaci6n del documento, habiendolo sometido

que demuestre

cl mismo el afio

1955, 6 sea cinco (5) aiios despues. Luego, de


ser cierta la declarnci6n de Montinola de que el 25 de Julio de
-

397

que haya retiado

fondos 6

que tuviern monedn

contante suficiente en In fechn del h. B), el Juzgado encuentra


...,.,.,.

:;

:;; '
.,,,.,.

"
\

'lfUi!
i

i;iJ

i.

39 8

VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963

COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS


Montinola

399

Montinola vs. Herbosa, et. al.

vs. Herbosa, et al.

mas creible la declaraci6n de Josefa Equia de que la canti dad pa


gada par Montinola el 25 de julio de 1949 era de P2,000.00 y no
P20,000.00. De lo cual, el Juzgado tendra que concluir que parte del
Exh. C, adolece de una. nlj:;eraci6n por no decir otra. cosa. Y no
habiendo nada en las pruebas q\ie demuestre que ademtis de esta
uma entregada el 29 de julio de 1949, Montinola hubiese pagado
otra suma 0 sums, y habiendo el mismo declarado que el precio
<ie Pl. 00 en el Exh. B otorgado el 13 da septiembre de 1950 no
era la verdad y que el verdadero precio era de f'20,000,00, la con
clusi6n a que el Tribunal necesariamente tendra que llegtir es que
el docurnento en cuesti6n, Exh. B, se habia firm.ado par Doiia Tri
nidad (si es que realmente se lo habia firmado) sin baber ella
recibido el precio convenido y que el mencionado documento, par
tanto, carecia faltaba de consideraci6n. Esta conclusi6n est.a. rema
chada par el detalle de que si fuera verdad que Montinola era el
dvefio de los objetos en cuesti6n y que solamente se habia conve
nido que Dafia Trinidad se los retuviera en su posesi6n mientras
ella viviese (habiendo e!la fallecido el 9 de mayo de 1951), el Juz
gndo no cornprende c6mo es que en ninguil.8. parte de sus pruebas
se ha dernostrado lo que Montinala habia hecho para poderlos re
coger por ser suyos, inrnediatarnente desps de rnorir Dofia Tri
nidad, pues SU rnuerte se public6 en los peri6dicos (Exh. 1) e hizo
el requerirniento a los demandados mlis de un aiio despuCs del 9
de mayo de 1951 (Exh. D), 6 sea el 23 de septiembre de 1952".
(pp. 276-279, Record on Appeal).

'

We agree with the foregoing findings of the trial court


which are borne out by the records and the evidence,
We further hold that:
( 1 ) Exhibit B is a separate and distinct contract from
Exhibit C, and that Exhibit B cannot stand valid as a
contract of sale, for the reason that the stated sale price
of 1'1.00 for things worth at least 1'20,000.00 is so insigni
ficant as to amount to no price at all. It is a price that is
"irrisorio" according to the Italian commentators. While
the law (Art. 1447, now 1469, new Civil Code) does not
require, for the validity of the contract of sale, that the
price be adequate, it ordains. that the price be real and
not fictitious. It is obvious that the price of l'l.00 stated

n . Exhibit B is not merely grossly inadequate, but that


it is not real, that it is fictitious. Neither can the instru
ment (Exhibit B) be considered valid as a donation under
t. 1471, Civil Code, there being no showing that' it was
mtended as a gift.
(2) D?iia Trida Rizal could not have sold the six ( 6 )
.
_ ht1gat10n to Enriq
Rizal
rehcs m
ue P. Montinola on Sep
tember 13; 1950 because the alcohol lamp, the portrait
of Leonor Rivera by Rizal, and the painting of Rizal by
Juan Llina were then in the custody of her nephew
Dr. Aristeo Ubaldo, and three months later, she gave said
.
rehcs
to her other nephew, defendant-appellee Estanislao
Herbosa, while the two top hats remained in the custody
of Dr. Ubaldo until he delivered the same to defendant
appellee, Macario Ofiana. Dofia Trinidad turned over
directly to said Ofiana, the woolen clothes of Rizal. It is
to be remembered that Dofia Trinidad Rizal was reared
and rd in the honest and honorable ways of our fathers,
and it is unthinkable that she could have been guilty of
.
_
d?uble dealm
and dishonesty, of deceit and estafa, by
.
ahenatmg agam certain Rizal relics which she had already
sold.
( 3) We give no credence to the testimony of the alleged
buyer, plaintiff-appellant Montinola, that he did not take
possession of the six ( 6 ) Rizal relics in question because
ofia Trinidad Rizal requested tliat she remain in posses
s10n thereof during her lifetime.
( 4) Even if Exhibit B were given effect, the execution
of sad public instrument did not constitute symbolic
.
trad1t1on
because of the agreement that the vendor Dofia
Trinidad Rizal, would remain in possession of the 'things
old. 1!-nce, the buyer did not acquire ownership, for
In the civil. law, ownership does not pass by mere consent
but by tradition.
(S)_ , The action of the alleged vendee, Montinola, is

400

VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963

COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS

Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

P.ossessor of the chattel has, or has not, a good and indefeasible


title; but whether plaintiff is the former owner and has been

on May 9,
barred by !aches. Dona Trinidad Rizal died
November
on
only
1951 . Plaintiff's action was brought
several
of
delay
28, 1955. There was an unreasonable
h no satisfactory
years in bringing the action for whic
, 45 Phil. 381,
explanation was given (Tuason vs. Marquez
the action
ging
brin
where there was delay of 16 months in
ed by !aches ). At
and the Court held that it was barr
.suing is indicative
least, plaintiff's unreasonable delay in
(Yatco vs. Prieto,
of the Jack of merit of his claim
. 29, 1961 ; Gelenin
Dec
CA-G. R. No. 27068-R, promulgated
6-R, June 30, 1956 ;
vs. De los Reyes, CA-G. R. No. 1050
690; Sanchez vs.
Veyra vs. Avila, 1 0. G., No. 10 (194 2), p.
1 , 1958; Buena
1
l
Apri
Salazar, CA-G. R. No. 16425-,R,
ventura vs. David, 37 Phil. 436 ).
ellee Her
With. respect to the claim of defendant-app
alcohol lamp, the
bosa, we find that his possession of the
l, and the paint
crayon portrait of Leonor Rivera by Riza
lucrative title
by
ired
ing' of Rizal by Juan Luna, acqu
valent to a
equi
is
from his aunt, Dona Trinidad Rizal,
l Code, paragraph
title, pursuant to Art. 559 of the Civi
one of which provides :
uArt.

401

illegally deprived thereof,

This is clear from the text <>f article

464 (now Art. 669) ,of our Civil Code, paragraph 1 :

For t e purposes of. facilitating tl'ansactions on movable prop


erty, which ar.e usually done without special formalities, article

"!'

464 (no"'. A . 659) of the Civil Code establishes, not only a mere
P:!.'esumpt1on in favor of the possessor of the chattel, but an nctual

right, valid against the true owner, except upon proof of loss or
This proof is rin indispensable requisite, a
illegal depriya ion.
_
si:ie qua. nn, . 1n order that the owner of the chattel may contest
tlie apparent. title of its possessor.
Without adequate proof of

such loss -Or illegal deprivation, the present holder can not be put

01

his defense, even if, as possessor, he has no actual proprietary

1tle
n

to the movable property in question.

Art. 464 (now Art.

559)

fac assumes that the possessor is as yet not the owner; for it
1 obvious that where the possessor has come to acquire indefeasible
title by, let us say, adverse possession for the necessary period no

proof of loss or . illegal deprfvation could avail the :former o ner


of the chattel.

nny conditions.

He would no longer be entitled to recover it under

ow, the evidence for the plaintiff is plainly inadequate to cs


tabhh the alleged illegal deprivJlt.ion or confiscation (accidental
.
loss is not involved) ; and for this reason his action must fail. * * "'
On the whole, we are of the opinion that the evidence does not
\Varrant the finding of confiscation made in the decision of the

acquired in good
559. The possession of personal property

nny
Nevertheless, one who has lost
faith is equivalent to a title.
it
er
recov
fully deprived thereof, ma)'
movable or hns been unlaw
g it."
from any person po:;sessin

trial court.

A iending of the decision appealed from clearly shows

that the trial judge lost sight of the rule established in Article

464 (now Art, 569) of the Civil CodG, and prooeeded on the theory
that de edant must establish a better title in himself as against
the pla1nt1ff appellee. This position, as we have poiiited uut is not

failed to prove
The plaintiff-appellant Montinola having
of said Rizal
that he was the owner or prior possessor
had been unlaw
relics and that he had lost the same or
case for re
fully deprived thereof, has established no
appellee
from
ables
covery of possession of the mov
, the
5075
G.
O.
Herbosa. In Sotto vs. Enage (CA) 43
L.,
B.
J.
s,
ice Reye
Court of Appeals, speaking thru Mr. Just
civilian and jurist, said:

corr';"t: the gist of the question is whether plaintiff was ; lei>:ally


deprived of the automobile, not whether defendant has better title

efenda t's possession of the chattel in good faith is


thcrto.
.
1tle until the illegal deprivation of the former O\Vner is
suf }c1ent
sut1sfacto1Ily proved, \Vhich was not done." * * *

Over and above the reasons stated for the intrinsic


invali ity of the Deed of Sale to plaintiff-appellant Monti
nola, lS the paramount consideration that the signature
.

in actions for the recovery


"The Court is of the opinion that
y is not whether the
inquir
of movable property, the subject of
\"
.. i
..>(',"

.'<!''

COURT OF APPEALS REPORT:::.

402

Kao Ngo Ang vs

VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1 963


Kao Ngo Ang vs. Republic

Republic

of the supposed vendee Doiia Trinidad Rizal is a forgery.


This Court with the conformity of appellant and appel
lees, by Re olution of October 19, 1961, referred Exhibits
B C 6 and 6-A to 6-I to the National Bureau of In
v sti ation with a view to determining the enu eess
of the si!!Ilature purporting to be that of Dona Tnmdad
Rizal in xhibit B. On February rz, 1962, the National
Bureau of Investigation's report was received by this
.
Court, pertinent portion of which is as follows :

u:i

"FINDINGS-CONCLUSION :

received reveals t at
Compa ative examinaion of the specimens
.
character1st1cs
riting
.handw
nces
in
differe
cant
there are signifi
signatures.
existing between the questioned and the snmple
.
were NOT written
This indicates that the questioned signatures

by one1 TRINIDAD RIZAL.'1

As regards the claim of defendant-appcllee Ofiana we


also find that his possession of the two top hats acqmred
from Dr. Aristeo Ubaldo, nephew of Rizal, and of the
woolen clothes, acquired from Doiia Trinidad Rizal, is
equivalent to a title and that, for the same reasons here
tofore given, plaintiff-appellant Montinola has proved no
case for recovery of the possession of said movables from
appellee Herbosa.
The judgment of the lower court is reversed. The com
plaint is dismissed, with costs against plaintiffcappellant.
.

Castro

and Villanwr, JJ., concur.

Judgmenl reversed.

KAo NGO
THE

[No.

28321-R.

February

14, 1963]

ANG. petitioner and appellee, vs. REPUIJLIC or


respondent and appellant.

PHII.IPPINES,

403

CIVIL

REGISTRY; ENTRY; CORRECTION OF NON-CLERICAL ERROR;


RULE.-When ian entry in t}le civil registry, assuming it to be
erroneous, is one that cannot be classified as a clerical error,
its correction should not be sought under the summary pro
ceeding set by Article 412 of the Civil Code, but must be

threshed out in an .appropriate action where all the parties to


be affected by the intended correction, including the State,
are made respondents.
.

APPEAL

from a. judgment of the Court of First Instance


of Manila. Vasquez, J.

The facts are stated in the opinic:m of the Court.

Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro .and


Solicitor Octavio R. Ramirez for respondent and appellant.
Romero & Romero for petitioner and appellee.

LUCERO, ].:
From a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila
directing the Local Civil Registrar to change the nation
ality of Kao Ngo Ang, as it appears on the birth certificate
of his daughter Debbie Ong Ang, from "Filipino" to
"Chinese," the Solicitor-General appealed contending, in
the main, that the supposed erroneous entry is not a
clerical mistake which might be corrected by judicial sanc
tion under Article 412 of the New Civil Code especially
where, as in the case under 6onsideration, the evidence
adduced is utterly insufficient to establish the commission
of a clerical error.
In support of his petition Kao Ngo Ang alone testified
and his testimony, insofar as it bears upon the alleged
erroneous entry, .is as follows :
"Q.-In this birth certificate, Exh. A, there appears in the space
corresponding to the father of the child your nationality here ap
pears as Filipino,

What can you. tell about that?

A.-I did not tell I am a Filipino.