You are on page 1of 1

FABIOLA SEVERINO (plaintiff-appellee) vs.

GUILLERMO SEVERINO (defendant-appellant)


FELICITAS VILLANUEVA (intervenor-appellee)
Ostrand, J.| 16 January 1923 | G.R. No. L-18058
Putative Principal:
Melecio Severino
Putative Agent:
Guillermo Severino
Putative 3rd Person: *Paano ito in relation to this case?
FACTS: Melecio Severino owned 428 hectares of the
land, which was administered by his brother, Guillermo
Severino. After Melecio's death, Guillermo continued to
occupy the land.
Cadastral proceedings were then instituted for the
registration of the lands titles within the surveyed area. In
the said proceedings, Guillermos lawyer Hofilea filed
answers in behalf of Guillermo claiming that Melecios
lots were the property of his client. Since no opposition
was made in the said proceedings, the titles were
eventually decreed in Guillermos favor.
Fabiola Severino (the alleged natural daughter of Melecio)
filed an action to compel Guillermo to convey to her four
parcels land, or in default to pay damages for wrongfully
causing said land to be registered in his own name.
Felicitas Villanueva, in her capacity as administratrix of
the estate of Melecio, filed a complaint in intervention
claiming in the same relief as the original plaintiff, except
in so far as she prays that the conveyance be made, or
damages paid, to the estate instead of to the plaintiff
Fabiola Severino.
The lower court rendered a judgment:
1. Recognizing the plaintiff Fabiola Severino as the
acknowledged natural child Melecio Severino and
2. Ordering the Guillermo to convey to Felicitas (as
administratix of Melecios estate):
a. 428 hectares of the land in question
b. Proceeds in his possession of a certain
mortgage placed thereon by him and to
pay the costs.
From this judgment, only Guillermo appeals.
MAIN ISSUE: Whether or not Guillermo ought to
reconvey the property to the administratix Felicitas
Villanueva?
RULING: YES. Guillermo came into possession of the
property as the agent of Melecio.
RATIO:
1. The relations of an agent to his principal are fiduciary
and it is an elementary and very old rule that in regard
to property forming the subject-matter of the agency,
he is estopped from acquiring or asserting a title

adverse to that of the principal. His position is


analogous to that of a trustee and he cannot
consistently, with the principles of good faith, be
allowed to create in himself an interest in opposition to
that of his principal or cestui que trust.
2. That Guillermo came into the possession of the
property in question as the agent of Melecio
Severino in the administration of the property, is clear
and cannot be disputed.
a.
In the case Montelibano vs. Severino,
Guillermos testimony is conclusive in this
respect. He stated under oath that from 19021913, he had been in charge and occupation of
the land as the encargado or administrator of
Melecio Severino and that he had always
known the land as the property of Melecio
Severino.
b. In his answer filed in the same case,
Guillermo, through his attorney, disclaimed all
personal interest in the land and averred that it
was wholly the property of his brother
Melecio.
3. Guillermo argues that his title has become res
judicata through the decree of registration and cannot
now be disturbed; however, the Court disagrees.
a. According to the Land Registration Act, this
decree becomes conclusive after 1 year from
the date of the entry if it is not disputed and no
one attempts to disturb the decree or the
proceedings upon which it is based.
b. Felicita, as administratix, raises the principle
of equity and contends that the legal title so
acquired inured to the benefit of the estate of
Melecio Severino (Guillermos principal
and cestui que trust). She thus asks that this
superior equitable right be made effective by
compelling the defendant, as the holder of the
legal title, to transfer it to the estate.
4. Here, the Court acknowledges that torrens titles carry a
strong presumption in favor of their regularity or
validity. However, once it is cleary proven that a
fiduciary relation existed and a consequent breach of
trust occurred, there is no reason why the Court
should not make such needed reparation.
a. As long as the land stands registered in the
name of the party guilty of the breach of trust
and no rights of innocent third parties are
adversely affected, reparation can take place
(in the form of a conveyance or transfer of the
title to the cestui que trust).
Judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED (with some
additional directions to its dipositive clauses) with the
costs against the appellant. The right of Fabiola Severino
to establish in the probate proceedings her status as
Melecios recognized natural child is reserved.

You might also like