Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

Case Name: Alpuerto vs.

Pastor By: Tangonan


GR No. L-12794 Topic: Res Inter Alios Acta Rule
Date: 14 October 1918 Exceptions
FACTS:
Juan Llenos was the owner of 3 parcels of land. Herein, a conflict arose bet. 2 parties concerning the ownership of the
said parcels of land.
Plaintiff Alpuerto based his claim to the parcels under a contract of sale w pacto de retro.b Whereas, Jose Pastor laid
his claim thereon due to his purchase of such at a public auction. It was also attested to by 2 subscribing witnesses.
On the other hand, Pastor argued that he was able to purchase the same after the court, in a previous case to recover a
sum of money, ruled in his favor as against Llenos.
It was also established that Alpuerto was the son-in-law of Llenos.
During the case bet. Alpuerto and Llenos, the former alleged that under Art. 1227 of the CC, Pastor was privy to the
sale between him and Llenos, and was, therefore, bound by the same to deliver it to him. In addition, the testimony of
a subscribing witness was then introduced.
In the present petition, Alpuerto prays that he be declared to have the full and absolute ownership of the subject
properties.

ISSUE/S: W/N Art. 1227 or other laws prohibit the introduction of testimony of an attesting witness/other persons present
when a private document is executied.

RULING: NO
The said testimony was admissible, even against 3 rd parties. The testimony of witnesses may be relied upon for the purpose of
proving that the private document was in fact executed & delivered upon the dates therein recited, and that plaintiffwent into
possession under them.Under Art. 1225, a document, which starts out as a private document and never rises above that status,
will be given effect as such.

That, if a party has a right under an instrument thats provable as a private doc and, if its approved, it will prevail from the true
and proven date of its execution. However, herein there arebadges of fraud, such as the fact that Alpuerto was Llenos son-in-
law, and that, at the time of the sale to Alpuerto, the case between Lleno and Pastor was alreading pending, which gave rise to a
presumption of fraud. Since, the same wasnt disproven by Alpuerto, the Court justly awarded the lots in question the favor of
Pastor.

Оценить