G.R. No. L-5937 January 30, 1954
PEDRO MENDOZA, plaintiff and appellee, vs. JUSTINA CAPARROS and OTHERS, defendants. PAULINO PELEJO, defendant and appellant.

FACTS

On June 11, 1921, Agapito Ferreras sold two parcels of land in Camagon, Alabat, Quezon, to Paulino Pelejo for P3,650. On February 15, 1932, Paulino Pelejo sold the same parcels to the spouses Victoriano Mendoza and Bernabela Tolentino. Upon their deaths, their heirs (Pedro, Leandro, and Justiniano Mendoza) executed an extrajudicial partition adjudicating the parcels to Pedro Mendoza. In March 1935, Agapito Ferreras obtained Original Certificate of Title No. 1345 for the parcels. On April 6, 1951, Ferreras’s heirs executed an extrajudicial partition, resulting in the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 10350 in favor of Justina Caparros, Socorro Ferreras, and Policornia Ferreras. The trial court found that the parcels were erroneously registered but without bad faith on the part of Ferreras or his heirs, and declared the true owners to be Victoriano Mendoza and Bernabela Tolentino, and upon their death, their heir Pedro L. Mendoza, the plaintiff. The court ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel TCT No. 10350 and issue a new one in the name of Pedro L. Mendoza. The defendants, except Paulino Pelejo, were ordered to pay costs. Pelejo filed a motion for reconsideration, asking for judgment in his favor for P500 as attorney’s fees for his defense, which the trial court denied. Pelejo appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the inclusion of Paulino Pelejo as a defendant in the complaint was a clearly unfounded civil action, thereby entitling him to recover attorney’s fees under Article 2208(4) of the New Civil Code.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed order denying Pelejo’s motion. The inclusion of Pelejo as a defendant was not unfounded. The deed of sale from Pelejo to the plaintiff’s predecessors contained a condition to “defend now and always against just claims of whoever may present them,” obligating Pelejo as vendor to warrant against eviction. Even without such stipulation, the vendor is responsible for eviction under Article 1548 of the New Civil Code (and Article 1475 of the old). The plaintiff’s complaint sought, in the alternative, that the defendants be required to pay the purchase price if cancellation or reconveyance was impossible, which was an action based on the express condition of the contract and the law on warranty against eviction. There was no showing the plaintiff acted in bad faith or knew the action against Pelejo was unfounded. Including Pelejo was to protect the plaintiff’s rights and served as notice that, in case of eviction, Pelejo as vendor would be liable for warranty. Pelejo, as vendor, had the obligation to prove he had a valid title when he sold the property; the title of the plaintiff’s predecessor depended on Pelejo’s title. Therefore, the inclusion of Pelejo as a defendant had legal basis.