G.R. No. 26183 , March 30, 1927
ISABELO DIZON, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANASTASIO, AGUEDO, VICTOR, CIPRIANO, MARIANO, FELIX, JULIAN, CIRILO, EUGENIA, by the surname LACAP, JADEAR, and THE INSULAR TREASURER, defendants-appellants.

Ponente: STREET, J.

FACTS

Isabelo Dizon and his sister Leoncia Dizon were donees of a parcel of land in San Miguel, Pampanga, donated by their uncle Pablo Lacap in 1896. They possessed, cultivated, and paid taxes on the land. In 1915, the Lacap family initiated land registration proceedings under Act No. 496 (Torrens Law) for their adjacent properties. By agreement with the Lacaps’ agent, Alipio L. Jadear, Dizon consented to include his land in the Lacaps’ application to save on separate registration costs, contributing P50 for the survey. The understanding was that after registration, the Lacaps would reconvey Dizon’s portion to him. The decree was issued on February 4, 1920, in favor of the Lacaps. However, on February 6, 1920, the Lacap defendants sold the entire registered tract, including Dizon’s land, to Eduarda Tan, who later sold it to Jose P. de Rivera Yap. Dizon filed a motion for revision under Section 38 of Act No. 496 but abandoned it as the land had been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value. Dizon then sued the Lacap defendants and the Insular Treasurer for damages, alleging fraudulent registration and sale. The trial court absolved the Insular Treasurer but held the individual defendants jointly and severally liable for P7,302, representing the value of Dizon’s land and improvements. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Insular Treasurer is subsidiarily liable under Sections 101 and 102 of Act No. 496 for damages arising from the fraudulent registration and sale of Dizon’s land.
2. Whether the trial court correctly awarded damages to Dizon and whether the amount awarded was proper.

RULING

1. No, the Insular Treasurer is not liable. The Court held that Dizon’s cause of action did not arise from any abuse of the registration process under Act No. 496 , as he had consented to the inclusion of his land in the Lacaps’ application. His right of action stemmed from the Lacaps’ breach of trust in selling the land instead of reconveying it to hima cause of action expressly reserved under Section 102 of Act No. 496 . Therefore, the trial court correctly absolved the Insular Treasurer.

2. Yes, the award of damages was proper. The Court affirmed the trial court’s award of P7,302 as the value of Dizon’s land and improvements. It rejected Dizon’s claim for additional annual damages for lost produce, stating that in an action for deprivation of property (akin to conversion), the plaintiff is entitled to the value of the property, not both the value and future profits. The Court found the valuation supported by evidence and not excessive. Interest from the filing of the complaint was not specifically assigned as error, and the award was deemed sufficiently liberal to cover it.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed in all respects. No costs were awarded.