SARITA vs. CANDIA

UST Block 3A
emphyteutic rent whatever; and that he never had in his possession the
SARITA v. CANDIA animals mentioned in the complaint.
GR No. 7768 | November 14, 1912
Facts: The spouses Apolinario Cedeño and Roberta Montesa acquired The court absolved the defendant from the complainant, on the grounds
during their marriage a piece of land, apparently of an area of 2 cavanes of that, with regard to the animals and real property sued for, there was no
corn upon which they had planted fruit trees. Apolinario Cedeño died in proof whatever that they were in possession of the spouses at the time of
1895 and Roberta Montesa in 1909. It is alleged that during the lifetime of their death, and, with respect to the land: (1) That the defendant was the
these spouses, from 1886 to April, 1909, Andres Candia was holding and possessor in good faith continuously and was presumed to hold under just
cultivating the said land, but that as stated in the complainant, he did so title so long as the contrary should not be proved; and (2) that neither the
merely under a lease and paid the said spouses one hundred pesos plaintiffs nor their alleged predecessors in interest made demand for it
semiannually; that, from May, 1909, he refused to pay the emphyteutic rent during the period of twenty-six years, since the ownership thereof was
for the cultivation of the land, appropriated the land and claimed ownership conveyed by Isidario or Apolinario Cedeño to Juan Basa Villarosa, on the
thereof; and that he also took possession of four mares, twelve carabaos, 24th of June, 1881, it being that during this very long period of time they did
and several pieces of furniture which were in the house erected on the said not obtain possession of the property.
land — a house worth 50 pesos —which he also seized and claimed as his
property. Apolinario Cedeño had three brothers and one sister, Macario, Issue: Whether or not petitioner, as grandnephew of deceased Apolinario,
Domingo, Leon, and Cristeta, of whom only the last mentioned is living. can inherit by right of representation in the collateral line
Macario left of five children, among them Tomas Cedeño; Domingo, the
Ruling: NO. In view of the foregoing considerations, we decide, with
same number, among them a daughter named Sofia, who died leaving a
respect to the exercise of the hereditary right derived from the intestate
son, Manuel Sarita; and Leon, four, among them, Gregorio Cedeño. All of
succession of Apolinario Cedeño:
these except Gregorio Cedeño and his brothers sue for the ownership of
the land and the other personal property of Andres Candia which, together
with the fruits thereof, they requested the CFI of Cebu to sentence the latter
to return to them and, further, that he indemnify them in the amount of First. That Manuel Sarita, the principal plaintiff, in whose house, according
P800, and pay the costs. to Exhibit D, there was drawn up at his request the engagement of all the
plaintiffs to confide the suit to the attorney who has conducted it, has
absolutely no such right, because he cannot represent his grandfather
Domingo, since, as aforesaid, in the collateral line the right of
Andres Candia, a nephew of Roberta Montesa as the son of her sister,
representation can only take place in favor of the children of brothers or
testified that he had been brought up, from the time he was very young, in
sisters, but not in favor of the grandson of a brother, such as is the said
the house of the spouses Cedeño and Montesa; that he worked on the
Manuel Sarita, the son of Sofia Cedeño who, in turn, was the daughter of
house which those spouses left at their death when it was under
Domingo Cedeño.
construction, and, from his boyhood, assisted in the cultivation of the land;
that said Apolonio Cedeño, otherwise known as Isidario Cedeño, was a
cabeza de barangay of the pueblo of Sibonga, who, in order to pay certain
shortages of the cabeceria under his charge, on the 24th of June, 1881, Second. That, on the hypothesis that such hereditary right derived from the
sold the said land to Juan Basa Villarosa, who held it in quiet and intestate succession of Apolinario Cedeño, does exist, it could only be
peaceable possession for twenty-four years and at his death such exercised by Cristeta Cedeño, the children of Macario Cedeño, and those
possession was continued by his sons, Sinforoso and Vicente Villarosa, of Domingo Cedeño, but not by Manuel Sarita, because in inheritances the
from whom witness, Andres Candia, acquired the property by purchase; nearer relative excludes the more remote, excepting the right of
that at no time did he hold the same as a lessee nor pay for it any representation in proper cases (Civil Code, art 921); from which it is inferred
1
UST Block 3A
that, in pushing forward Cristeta Cedeño, the children of Macario Cedeño

and those of Domingo Cedeño, to exercise such a hereditary right, it should
have been noticed that the personality of these parties as the nearest
relatives excluded that of Manuel Sarita, the son of Sofia Cedeño, of a more
remote degree.
Third. That, on the same hypothesis, in the eyes of the law no meaning
whatever could be given to the document, Exhibit H of the plaintiffs, wherein
it is made to appear that the widow of Apolinario Cedeño, Roberta Montesa
implored of the heirs of her deceased husband that she be allowed to
continue in her possession of the land and the house of the family;
inasmuch as, as coowner of such property, she was entitled to one-half of it
and, besides, had a right of usufruct to one-half of the other half of the
same, pursuant to the provisions of articles 837 and 953 of the Civil Code,
and until she was satisfied for her part of usufruct, this half of the other half
remained liable for the payment of such part of usufruct. (Civil Code, art.
838.)
Fourth. The hypothesis disappears from the moment that it is proved that at
the death of such alleged predecessor in interest in the inheritance, the land
in question was not owned by him, it having been transferred in 1881,
according to a conclusion established by the trial judge. Therefore, the
action for the recovery of possession, derived from such alleged
inheritance, cannot exist.
Case Digest: Binua, L.J.I.

SARITA vs. CANDIA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SARITA vs. CANDIA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UST Block 3A

GR No. 7768 | November 14, 1912

that, in pushing forward Cristeta Cedeño, the children of Macario Cedeño

Case Digest: Binua, L.J.I.

You might also like