Fabiola Severino sued Guillermo Severino to compel him to convey four parcels of land that were registered under Guillermo's name but actually belonged to Fabiola's deceased father, Melecio Severino. The court ruled that Guillermo, as Melecio's agent, breached his fiduciary duty by registering the land under his own name. As Melecio's agent, Guillermo was not allowed to acquire an interest in the land adverse to Melecio. The court affirmed that Fabiola could still establish herself as Melecio's heir in probate proceedings and pursue conveying the rightful title to her.
Fabiola Severino sued Guillermo Severino to compel him to convey four parcels of land that were registered under Guillermo's name but actually belonged to Fabiola's deceased father, Melecio Severino. The court ruled that Guillermo, as Melecio's agent, breached his fiduciary duty by registering the land under his own name. As Melecio's agent, Guillermo was not allowed to acquire an interest in the land adverse to Melecio. The court affirmed that Fabiola could still establish herself as Melecio's heir in probate proceedings and pursue conveying the rightful title to her.
Fabiola Severino sued Guillermo Severino to compel him to convey four parcels of land that were registered under Guillermo's name but actually belonged to Fabiola's deceased father, Melecio Severino. The court ruled that Guillermo, as Melecio's agent, breached his fiduciary duty by registering the land under his own name. As Melecio's agent, Guillermo was not allowed to acquire an interest in the land adverse to Melecio. The court affirmed that Fabiola could still establish herself as Melecio's heir in probate proceedings and pursue conveying the rightful title to her.
Fabiola Severino vs Guillermo Severino 2) WON there was fraud involved when
(Ostrand, J., 1923) he registered the parcels in his name.
ANS.: Appellant was claiming that if the FACTS: Action by Fabiola, claiming to be Trial Court admitted his evidence, it would the natural daughter and sole heir of have shown that he did not act fraudulently deceased Melecio Severino to compel and that he was willing to concede to Guillermo to convey four parcels of land OR Fabiola her share of land. He was claiming in default thereof, pay her P800K for that the present action was under Section 38 damages, for wrongfully causing said land to of Land Registration Act to reopen or set be registered in his name. Lower Court aside a decree; it is, however, an action in acknowledged her as the natural child and personam, against an agent to compel him ruled in her favor. to return to the heirs or the estate of its principal to execute necessary documents The disputed lots are 3 parcels in Silay, thereof, or damages. He was appointed an Negros Occidental. Melecio Severino died agent of the deceased, and that in a in 1915. The 428 hectares of land was previous case, he stated under oath that registered in Mortgage deed register in his he had been continuously in charge of the name in 1901 by virtue of possessory estate since 1902 up to 1913; that he had information proceedings by his brother known the land belongs to Melecio, and Agapito. In 1916, the lands were surveyed that the possession of the latter was for cadastral proceedinggs, finding that it peaceful, continuous, exclusive, and that may be subdivided to four lots. Roque previous to the trial, he had already Hofilena filed for claims, and the lots were secured relinquishment in his favor of the named in Guillermo’s favor in 1917. At that rights of his brothers and sisters over the time, Fabiola was a minor, and Guillermo land. did not appear to testify. Only the lawyer The relations of an agent to his principal are was there, testifying that the land is fiduciary and it is an elementary and very Guillermo’s alone. Appellant files a case old rule that in regard to property forming with the CA. the subject-matter of the agency, he is estopped from acquiring or asserting a title ISSUES and RULING: adverse to that of the principal. His position 1) WON Trial Court erred in failing to is analogous to that of a trustee and he recognize appellant as a natural cannot consistently, with the principles of child. good faith, be allowed to create in himself ANS.: In the present case, neither the an interest in opposition to that of his widow, the alleged natural child, or the other principal or cestui que trust. brothers were included. It was held in a precedent case that legitimate heirs or kin of The decree of registration determined the a deceased person who would be prejudiced legal title to the land and under Sec. 38, the by a declaration that another person is decree became exclusive after one year of entitled to recognition, are necessary and date of the entry. Only question is whether indispensable parties to an action to claim. or not the decree of registration extinguished However, her legitimacy was not yet proven personal right of action. and may be determined during the probate proceedings. So, the trial court prematurely Once the relation and the breach of trust on acknowledged her. the part of the fiduciary is thus established, there is no reason, neither practical nor legal, why he should not be compelled to make such reparation as may lie within his power for the injury caused by his wrong, and as long as the land stands registered in the name of the party who is guilty of the breach of trust and no rights of innocent third parties are adversely affected, there can be no reason why such reparation should not, in the proper case, take the form of a conveyance or transfer of the title to the cestui que trust.
DISPOSITIVE: CA ruling affirmed. The
right of the plaintiff Fabiola Severino to establish in the probate proceedings of the estate of Melecio Severino her status as his recognized natural child is reserved.