Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-6537 November 13, 1911
PILAR GIL, exe!"r#x o$ "%e &'(" )#&& '*+ "e("'me*" o$ +ee'(e+ M'*!e& M!r#'*o, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
SIL,INO LOPE-, opponent-appellant.
Pastor Salo, for appellant.
Orense and Gonzales Diez, for appellee.

MORELAN., J.:
This is a proceeding brought in the Court of and Registration b! Pilar "il as e#ecutri# of the last $ill and testa%ent of
Manuel Murciano, deceased. The and Court ordered the propert! registered in the na%e of the plaintiff as such e#ecutri#
and the corresponding certificate of title issued. This appeal is ta&en fro% the 'udg%ent decreeing such registration and the
issuance of such title.
Ads By
NetCrawl
(We have already held in the case of Soriano vs. Talens (p. 257,supra) that the land Registration
Act does not confer authority upon an administrator to register title to the land of which his
intestate died seied. !n the a"sence of such authority such administrator is not the proper party
to "ring such a proceeding. We see no reason why such a holding should not apply to an
e#ecutri# where the record does not show, as it does not in this case, that the will of the deceased
conferred upon the e#ecutri# as such any interest in the land of which he died seied.
This )uestion, ho$ever, $as not raised in the court belo$ and has not been specificall! raised on this appeal. *e feel.
ho$ever, that it is one $hich the court ought not to pass $ithout notice although it is not e#pressl! raised. +f $e per%itted this
cause to pass successfull! through this court, thereb! giving it our sanction, $e %ight thereb! %islead an innocent
purchaser or an innocent incu%brancer of the propert! in )uestion to part $ith his %one! upon the faith of such sanction
onl! to find later, possibl!, that there $as a serious )uestion as to $hether or not the opinion, therefore, that, upon this
ground alone, it is the dut! of this court to raise this )uestion itself and present it for the consideration of the litigants in this
case. There is another ground also. *here a cause of action is stated in the na%e of one person and the proofs sho$ that
the real part! in interest is another person $holl! distinct, the court should not per%it the 'udg%ent to stand even though the
)uestion is not specificall! raised. +n such case there is not foundation upon $hich to base a 'udg%ent in favor of the plaintiff
as there is a failure of proof of a cause of action in favor of the %oving part!. ,ustice $ill not per%it us to overloo& a case of
that character and sent it on to the future $ith the i%plied sanction $hich such action $ould give.lawphi l.net
*e are not un%indful of the force of the principle that courts, generall! spea&ing, should not decided cases upon points not
presented and argued, $ithout giving the parties an opportunit! to be heard upon such )uestions- and in reversing this
'udg%ent $e do so $ith the &no$ledge that the defeated part! %a! %a&e application for reargu%ent $ithin the ti%e
prescribed b! the rules of this court.
The 'udg%ent is hereb! reversed and the application dis%issed. .o ordered.
Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Trent, JJ., concur.