COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS

376 VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963 377

People vs. Bigayan, et al.
Montino/a vs. Herbosa, et al.

El testigo De Leon declara, asimismo, que Valido para

de vino ofrecido par Valido que este Tribunal considera
impedir que el (De Leon) prestara ayud� a Hernandez,
insuficiente para causar intoxicaci6n a aque! (Bigayan).
momentos antes y durante el ataque, Vahdo, armada de
El juzgado a quo,· pues, err6 al considerar a favor de
un "balisong" le ataco asestando varjas puiialadas que no Bigayan l a circunstancia atenuante de intoxicaci6n. La
hicieron blanco. La verdad es que De Leon que esta �� maxima d e la pena indeterminada debe ser en este caso
desarmado no solamente no foe herido sino que no sufno
impuesta en su grado media.
El testigo De Leon, finalmente, �le�a que
ni rasguiios.
La causa contra Patricio Casem foe sobreseida por el
momentos despues de escaparse de! lugar de! mc1dente,
juzgado a quo a petici6n de! Ministerio Fiscal.
y despues de haber recorrido dos manzanas, volvio a la
. . EN su VIRTUD, este Tribunal despues de aplicar la :(.ey
escena de! crimen donde encontro a Hernandez tend1do
de Sentencias Indeterminadas le condena a sufrir la petia
en el suelo baiiado en su propia sangre. Si consideramos
cl hecho, como asi aparece en autos, que De Leon regres6
d e un (1) afio, un (1) mes y diez {10) dias de prisi6n

a ]a escena de! crimen sin estar acompaiiado de nadie, Y

correccional, coma minima, a ocho ( 8) afios y un (1 ) \lia

sin haber dado parte de! incidente en la estacion de po­ de prisi6n mayor, coma maxima. Se absuelve al apelante

iicia que solo dista 200 metros de la escena de! crimen, Benigno Valido de! delito querellado, con Ia mitad de las
·
_
su contenci6n que momentos antes de su regreso Vahdo costas de oficio. Con la modificaci6n indicada, votamos
armada de un "balisong" le habia atacado y asestado par la confinnacion de la decision apelada en cuanto a los
,·arias puiialadas, y que tuvo que darse a la fuga porque otros respectos, con una mitad de las. costas.
SU Vida estaba en peligro, es ciertamente inconsistente Y
ASI SE ORDENA.
fucra de raz6n.
A Ia vista de las datos expuestos el Tribunal se resiste Sanchez y Enriquez, MM., estan con::onnes.
a dar credito al tcstimonio de De Leon que Valido armada
s.e modifica la sentencia.
de un "balisong", para impedirle que prestara ayuda a
Hernandez, le asesto varias puiialadas, golpes que no hi­
cicron blanco. El Tribunal, pues, concluye que entretiene
scrias dudas en cuanto a la culpabilidad de! apelante
Benigno Valido como c6mplice de! delito querellado, [No. 23022-R. February 14, 1963]
;
dud: s que deben rescilverse a favor de! apelante. (U.S.
ENRIQUE p' MONTINOLA, plaintiff and appellant, vs. ESTA­
i·s. Lazada, 18 Phil. 90; U.°S. vs. Douglas, 2 Phil. 261)
NISLAO HERBOSA and MACARIO OFI�NA, defendants and
En la imposicion de la pena al apelante, Bibiano Biga­
yan, cl juzgado a q110 consider6 a favor de aquel a cir­ ! appellces.

cunstancia alenuante de intoxicaci6n porquc B1gayan
habia tornado \•ino ofrecido par Valido momentos antes
dcl incidcnte. Hernandez, De Leon y Valido declaran que
cl apclantc Bibiano Bigayan tom6 una pequeiia cantidad
l, JUDG�IENTS; RIZAL RELICS; JUDGMENT OF INDEMNITY AGAINST
RIZAL AND HIS HEms RENDERED RY THE SPANISH COUNCIL OF
WAR IN DECEMBER, 1896, NO LoNGER ENFORCEABLE; CASE AT
BAR.-In December, 1896, Dr, Jose Rizal \Vas charged before
the Spnnish Council of War \Vith the con1plex crime of found-

..... ..,,
 COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS
378
Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.
ing illegal associations as a means of promoting or inducing
rebellion, and, after a proceeding in which he was denied the
right of confrontation, was convicted and sentenced to death,
and ordered to pay inn indemnity of Pl00,000.00 in favor of
the State, the obligation being transmissible to his heirs. Rizal.
was executed on Dec, 30, 1896, leaving certiJ.·in articles litigated
in this action. The trial court held that the judgment of
indemnity is still enforceable against the estate .and heirs of
Rizal, and ·that the relics in question belong to the Republic
of the Philippines bec;ause the said indemnity has never been
satisfied, Held: The judgment of indemnity may no longer
be enforced, for the following reasons: (1) History has repu­
diated the Spanish charge that Rizal was a traitor, as \Vell
as the validity of the criminal. proceedings _against him. To
enforce the judgment would be to rewrite the verdict of hii:;­
tory that Rizal died a hero of the Filipino people; (2) The
charge against Rizal was for a crime with political com­
plexion. Upon the change of sovereignty and by virtue of
the Treaty of Paris of April 1, 18991 all political acts or acts
with politioal complexion of the Spanish Crown became ipso
facto null and void; and (3) The judgment was entered more
than 65 years ago, (Sec, 6, Rule 39, Rules of Court; Art.
1144, Civil Code.)
2. WILLS; RizAL's uULTIMO ADios", NOT A WlLL.-An instrument
which merely expresses a last ·wish as a thought or advice
but does not contain a disposition of property and was not
executed with ani11i11s testandi, cannot legally be conside1·ed
a \vill. Rizal's "Ultimo Adios'' is a literary piece of work
and was so intended. It may be considered a will in the gram­
matical sense, but not in the leg:il or juridical sense.
3. SALE; PRICE MUST BE REAL, NOT FICTITIOUS; PRICE OF f'l.00 IN
CASE AT BAR FICTITIOUS.-While Article 1469 of the Civil
Code does not require1 for the validity of a contr:ict of sale,
that the price be adequate, it ordains that the price be real ·
,.nd not fictitious. Where the things sold are worth r20,ooo.oo,
'
the price ·of P'l.00 is not merely grossly inadequate, but it is
not real; it is fictitious.·
4. ID,; OWNERSHIP PASSES NOT BY MERE CONSENT BUT BY TnADI­
TION.-Thc execution of n public instrument of sale does not
constitute syn1bolic tradition \vhcrc there is an agreement that
·.
VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963
379
Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.
the vendor would remain in possession of the thing sold, for
in the civil law, ownership does not pass by mere consent but ·
by tradition.
5, ,ACTIONS;, RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY;
POSSESSION IN Goon F:AITH EQUIVALENT TO TITLE; EVIDENCE.­
The possession in good faitli of personal property acquired by
lucrative title is equivalent to a title (Art, 559, Civil Code) ;
·hence,- in a n •action to recover possession of persont;\l property,
plaintiff must prove that he was its owner or prior pas­
. sessor and that he had lost it or had been unlawfully deprived
thereof (Sotto vs. Enage, (CA.) 43 O.G., 50 75) .
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance
of Manila.. Gatmaitan, !.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Jose J. Francisco for plaintiff and appellant.
Vicente M. Magpoc for defendant and appellee Estanis­
lao Herbosa.
Assistant Solicitor General Esmeralda Umali·and Solic­
itor Briberto D. Ignacio for defendant and appellee Ma­
cario Ofiana.
MR. JUSTICE CAPISTRANO .delivered the opinion of the
Court.
The plaintiff and both defenqants having admitted in
their pleadings that their respective claims of ownership
came· from the samt: source, Dona Trinidad Rizal, there
was no question that the Rizal relics were private property.
The trial court, however, seized upon j)laintiff's testimony
that Dona Trinidad had doubted whether she had the right
to sell him the Rizal relics, in order to make the strange
and abruj)t . finding that with respect to the intrinsic
validity of the deed of sale, Exhibit B, there were histori­
cal d1;1ta agJlinst the same, which required a narration in
chronological ·order. of their occurreni;e in December, 1896.
The Court then gave the narration, the highlights of which
380 COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS
VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963 381

Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

Mrmtinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

were: The criminal prosecution of Rizal before the la Presid

_ encin del Sr. Teniente Coronel Don Jose Togoros
Consejo de Guerra in which he was denied the right of .
A Jo�a, para ver Y fallar la causa instruida -contra Don Jose
_ :
confrontation; his conviction for the complex crime of .R1z � M.ercado Y Alonzo, .a"cusado de las delitos de rebeli6n
�
�

founding illegal associations as the means of promoting s��1c1on Y asocinci6n ilicita, le ha examinad.o con toda deten:

or inducing rebellion; the sentence of death paS$ed upon
him, with the obligation to indemnify the State in the sum
of PJ00,000.00, the obligation being transmissible to his
heirs; the order of Governor General Polavieja approving
the judgment and providing for Rizal's execution by
musketry; the notification to Rizal of the sentence of
death on the 29th of December, 1896; his writing of "Mi
Ultimo Adios" on the eve of his execution; the furtive
delivery of said poem, hidden in an alcohol lamp, to hi;;
sister, Trinidad Rizal, in the morning of the day of execu­
tion, December 30, 1896; the aet of execution after which
there were shouts of "Muera el Traidor" while the military
band was playing the Marcha de Cadiz; and the burial of
Rizal's corpse incognito in the soil of Paco, outside the
Catholic cemetery, between an unidentified burnt cadaver
and that of a suicide, recorded as persons who died im­
cton Y cuidado, previa la lectura de sus actuaciones hecha
por el Seii�r Juez Instructor, vista la acusaci6n fiscal,' oido el
1alegato de defensa y la adici6n a la misma leidn par el acuR
sado, el Consejo de Guerra ordinnrio de plaza declal'a que el
?�c ?o perseguido eonstituye Jos delitos de fundar asociaciones
Jl 1c1tas y de promover e inducir p2ra ejccutar el de rebeli6n,
. .
s1endo el pr1me o media necesario pa�a cjecutar el segundo;
�
resultando responsable, en concepto de autor' el procesado
Don Jose Rizal.
'En. su virtud, falla: que debe condenar y condena al !'efe­
ridq Don Jose Rizal a In pena de muerte, y en cnso de indulto
Uev ara. consigo, caso de no remitirse especialmente, las ace �
_
sor1ns de inhabilitaci6n ab2oluta perpetua y sujeci6n de Aquel
a la vigilancia de la nutoridad por el tiempo de su vida de·
biendo satisfacer en conr.epto de indemnizaci6n al Esta o la �
cantidad de cien mil pesos con la obligaci6n del. tr.ansmitirse
la satisfacci6n de esta indemnizaci6n a las herederos; todo
con arreglo a las articulos 188, ·num. 2 en relaci6n con el num.

penitents. Said the trial court: 1 de! 189, y 230 en relaci6n col\ el num. 1 de! 229, 11, 53, 63,
80, 89, 119, 118, nUm. 2, 189, nUm. 1, 229, nUm, 1, 230, 123,
Dofia Tri-
"En el curso de su. testimonio, M.ontinola admiti6 que eri relaci6n con el 119, nUm. 3, y-122 y dem5.s de ge�cral
derecho a venderle los efectos del
11idad dudabn de si ella tuviere aplicaci6n de! C6digo P�nal.
n. 78, sesi6n de! 6 de Diciembre de 1956). Asi '
Dr. Rizal; (t.s.
. 'Asi lo pronuncia y manda el Consejo de Guerra ordinario
intrinsica
debia de hnber sucedido, porque en cunnto a la validez
de Plaza, iirm.H.ndola el Presidente y Vocales del Mismo :­
clE-1 Exh. B, dates hay en la historin que contradicen tat hecho
i
Jose Togoros Braulo Rodriguez-Nufiez-Ricardo I\-luii.oz­
ncontecirnientos que para mn:or clnridad hnce falta relatarlos, si­
Fern1in Perez Rodriguez-Manuel Roguera-Manuel Diaz,
guiendo el orden cronol6gico de las sucesos del Dicien1bre de 1896.
11El proceso contra el Dr. Rizal se inici6 cl 30 de Noviembre del Escribano-Santiago Izquierdo.' (Biografia de Rizal por Ra­
fael Palma) ;
mis1no ar.o; despues del sumario e interrogatoria, dur�ntc:i las cualcs
ua se le concedi6 el derecho de cncararsc con las testigos de la La sentencia condenatoria arriba acotada fue recibida par el Go·
acusaci6n, ni fue notificado de la presentaci6n de los infarn1es1 el
bE!rnador General y aprobada par el mismo por media
. del siguiente
Ccnsejo de Guerra le impusa In siguiente sentencia el 26 de Diciem·
. dictamen:
bre de 1896: '

'En la plaza de Manila, a las veintiseis dlas del mes de 'Maniia, 28 de diciembre de 1896.-Conforme con el �nterior . .

Dicicmbr-e de n1il ochocientas noveritll y seis, reunido el Con· dictamen, aprueba Ia sentencia dictadn par el Consejo de
.
sejo de Guerra ordinario de plaza ce!ebrado en este dia bajo / Guerra ordinarJo de plaza en la presente causa, en virtud de
I
382 COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963 383

Montinola vs. H erbosa, et al. Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

la. cnal se impone la pena de muerte al reo JosE RIZAL MER­ superior to the rights of plaintiff or his predecessor-in­
CADO, la que se ejecutarU pastlndole por las armas a las siete interest and of any and all other persons
·
whomsoever.
de la mniiana del din treinta del ac tunl en el campo de Bagum­ Said the triiil court:
bayan, y con las formalidades que la ley previene.-P.ara su
cumplimiento y demRs que corresponda, welva al Juez Instruc­ "* * 1;1 en cuanto Jal caudal que huniese dejado, debe decirse que
tor, Capitan D. Rafael Dominguez. CAMILO G. DE POLAVIEJA.' no podia haberse dej,ado lega..lmente bienes relictos, puesto que
(Id. p. 322). coma ya se .ha relatado la sentencin condenatoria le impuso ademii.s
contra el la multa de Pl00,000.00. y l a obligaci<in de satisfacerse el
en la
y se le notific6 de la mismn al reo en el memento de recluirle pago de esa cantidad, segUn prescribia el fallo, se impuso iriclu­
en la vispera del dia de la
capilla de la Fuerza de S:antiago; que sive a sus herederos, y la historia no dice que la multa haya sido
a o sea_ el de diciembr e, estando en s�
ejecuci6n de la sentenci 29 satisfecha; Y sus pari entes asi debieron de haberlo con1prendido­
celda y en I.a completa oscuridad de lri. nae he, a la luz
de 1� d� b1l
� que �l Dr. Rizal no les habia dejado bienes de su propiedad, tanto
. ·
el Dr. Rizal compuso su Ult1mo
illimpara que iluminab a la celda , qlle seglln el bi6grafo Wenceslao Retana (Vida y Escritos, p, 455),
Adi6s.' segtin las obrns de Rafael P.alma y de Romiin Ozaeta.
�
( �be
los padres del Dr.· Rizal para poder conseguir siquiera una reliquia
notarse que el nrticulo del segund o ha sido aceptad o como ; e r1 d1co
de su hijo, tuvieron que escribir la siguiente carta al Juez Sr. Do­
par la Enciclopedia Americ ana 23:556; y el docume nto fu� e scon­
n1inguez, el 27 de en ero, 1897:
.
de! dia s1guiente ,
dido en Ja Jampa rilla hist6rica.) En la madrugada 'Sefior Juez Instructor:-
el
30 de dicie n1bre, y antes de empezar la marcha a }a Luneta, Francisco R·izal Mercado y Teodora Alonzo avecintlados d e
la lan1parilla a s�. her­
Dr Rizal tuvo la oportunidad de entregar esta capital, padres del difunto Jose R-iznl, a Vd , como mejor
lalgo dentro i por
�
ma a Trinid ad, diciend ola en Ingles que habia
.
� proceda nos presentamos y exponemos:
la poster1dad; Uega o
esc medio, el 'Ultimo Adios' fue salvado para Que nuestro hijo en su muerte dej6 entre otras cosas u n
el grupo del reo y de los soldado s que iban n ejec.utnr la sente �c1a juego de botones d e oro y u n alfiler d e c orbata , y desea n do
·
oi el Dr. R�znl
en la LunetaI a la hora fijada, se consurni6 el sacrifici• ·tener�os coma recuerdo suyO dichos objetos, suplicamos a Vd.
seguida de gr1tos de 'Muera
fue fusilado; Ia cnida· de su cuerpo fue se :sirva hacer todo lo posible para que consigarnos nuestro
del sonido de }a 'March a de
cl Traidor' de algunos re1igios os, y deseo, y siendo asi, cuanto agradeceriarnos 1a. Vd, Gracia que
Ctidiz' por la banda militar ; el cadave r f ue recogid o por el. each � imPioramos a Vd. cuya vida gl1arde Dias n1uchos aiios.'
furg6n y Jlevado en silencio al cemente rio de P.aco, donde fu : De los menciqnados sucesos hist6ricos que no pueden ser ignorados,
fue:
enterrado en tierra, fuera del cementerio Cat6lico; el muerto el Juzgado encuentra (iue si el IDr. Rizal hubiera dejndo bienes de
do entre un cadaver carboni zado que no pudo ser identifi­
deposita alguna clase, los mismos se encontrarin'n sujetos al gravamen sU.pe­
;cado y otro que rnuri6 coma suicida y la muerte
fue nnotad a en
rior del Estado par el pago de la multa de '¥"100,000.00; obligaci6n
. . ' ·# # (Ill
en1 tentes;
una hoja especial de personas que mur1eron 1mp que se impusc> .inclusive a sus herederos, de suerte que a l a luz de
la deeisi6n de la Corte Suprema en El Gobierno de Filipinas contra.
We have no quarrel with the narration as facts of El Hagar Filipino, 35 Jur. Fil., 728, esa obligaci6n sobre la multa
history, but we find error in the adoption by the trial venta. a ser una espe cie de fideicomiso establecido a favor del anti­
gµ'o soberano, adquirido par los Estados Unidos al firmarse el
court of the foregoing historical events as its own findings
Tratado de Paris, e} diciembre de 1898, y transferido a Filipinas
to support its conclusion that the Consejo de Guerra's
por operaci6n de la Lf:!Y de lndependencia de 1934, dando por re­
judgment of indemnity against Rizal was, and still is, sultado de que ninguna otra persona, ni el mismo d emandante, sino
valid 'J.ild enforceagle, and that in view of said judgment, .sola�ente el Esta.do pudiese· rec.Jamar derecho preferente sabre esos
the State now has a lien and rights over all Rizal relics bienes. Tan1poco podria alegarse que£ el demandante o su ante-

el �?··'.·l�
· �
� � f.' . . � �!1 �·:3".
:·!
·I; ••• 1; ;J.a � L
 VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963 385
384 COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS
Montinola vs. H erbosa, et al.
Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

inde�i ty a ainst the Rizal relics, aside from being le­

cesora tuviern titulo de propiedad adquirido por su largn posesi6n ?
gally l�poss ble, would ·be to rewrite the verdict of history
puesto que no puede ganarse el dominio par prescripci6n en contra �
that Rizal died a hero of the Filipino people.
clel derecho superior del Estndo.''
The trial court went further and held that the·.Rizal
Historical records show that Rizal's· execution sparked the relics in litigation were property of the State from a dif­
Filipino revolution against Spain. We recall the immortal �erent point of view, to wit, that Rizal's "Ultimo Adios"
words of the great Filipino poet, Cecilio Apostol, on is a holographic will. The lower court' s reasoning is as
Rizal's execution: "Si una bala destroz6 tu craneo tam­ follows:
bien tu idea destroz6 un imperio." After the overthrow
"Par lo demaS, si dudaS existieren todavia sabre Ia exactitud
of the Spanish regime and the defeat of Filipino arms by :
de .la �recedente s � uci6n, otra via de argumentaci6n .nos llevaria
the Americans, the Americ:an regime did not move for the a la mJsma conclusion. La poesia hist6rii?a reza asi:
execution of the judgment' against Rizal and his heirs with 'Adi6s, Patria ·adorada, regi6n· d�r sol querida'
respect to the indemnity; instead, the American regime, Perla del Mar de Oriente, nuestro perdido eden
'
A daz:te voy alegre, la triste, mustia vida;
in accord with the sentiment of the Filipino people, ele­
y fuern mas brillante, mas fresca, nuis florida'
vated Rizal to the seat of the martyr. Thus, Rizal became
'na.mbien por ti la diera, la diern par tu bien.
our greatest national hero and has remdned so for a ·
'En campos de batalle, luchando con delirio1
period of more than sixty years to�date, comprising the Otros te dan sus Vidas, sin dudas sin pesar.
American regime, the Commonwealth period, and the El sitio nada importa; cipres, laurel 6 Iirio,
Republic era. History has thus repudiated the Spanish · Cadalso 6 ca1npo abierto, combatc 6 cru"el martirio'

charge that Rizal was a traitor, as well as the validity o f Lo mismo es si fo pidcn la Patria y el hoi:ar.
the criminal proceeding against Rizal in which he was 'Yo muero, cuando veo que el cielo se colora
.
Y al fin anuncla el dia, tras l6bl'ego capuz 1•
denied the right of confrontation, of the Spanish sentence
Si grana necesitas, para tefiir tu aurora
of death and the execution of Rizal, and of the judgment . JVierte la sangre mia, �
derrB.mala en bu n hara'
against Rizal and his heirs to pay the State, then repre­ Y d6rela un reflejo de su naciente luz!
sented by the Spanish government, the sum of !'100,000.00 '}!is suefios, cuandc apenas muchacho adolcscente'
as indemnity. To say now, as the trial court has, that the ru_:is suefios cuando joven, ya Beno de vigor,
judgment of indemnity against Rizal and his heirs was, Fueron el verte un din, joya dcl Mar de Oriente'
SecJs las ncgrus ojos, alta la tcrsa frcr.te,
and still is, valid and enforceable, is error. Such holding
Sin cefio, sin arrugas, f:in n1anchas de rubor.
is a repudiation of the verdict of history in favor of Rizal.
'Ensueiio de mi vida, mi ardicntc vivo nnhelo 1
It is error to hold that the judgment of the Spanish i Salud ! te grita el alma, que pronto va a. partir •
Countil of War is still enforceable against the estate and I Salud ! ah, que es hermoso caer por dartc vuel � '

heirs of Rizal, and that the relics in question belong to Morir po.r darte vida, morir bajo tu cielo,
Y en tu encantada tier11a la eternidad dormir !
the Republic of the Philippines because the adjudged
. , 'Si sobre mi sepulcro vieres brotar, un dia,
indemnity of 1'100,000.00 has never been satisfied. To
Entre la espesa yerba sencilla humi1de flor,
sustain the enforcement of the· Spanish judgment of the

:.Ji 'ti ..
. .. fl '- ;
, _,,' ..,
 COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS
386 VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963 387
Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.
Mon tinola vs. Herbosa, e t al.

Acercala a tus labios y besa el alma mia,

Dad gracias, que dcscnnso del fatigoso din;
y sienta yo en mi frente, bajo la tumba fria,
Adi6s, dul�e extraujera, mi amiga, mi -alegria;
De' tu temura el soplo, de tu hiilito el calor.
Adi6s, queridos seres. Morir es descansar.'
'Deja a la luna verm� con luz tranquila y suave;
Deja que el alba envie su resplendor .fugaz; S e nota1·a que en la estancia 13 (1), el Dr, Rizal escrlblo: "Ahl
Deja gemir al viertto, con su murmullo gr- ave; te dejo todo". No cabe discutir que el pronombre "te" se referia
Y si desciendc y posa sabre mi cruz un ave, e. la Patria; asi debe de entenderae esa estancia, tal como se en­
Deja que el ave entone su cB.ntico d� paz. tendia durante el Gobiarno Revolucionario puesto que en )os afios
1Deja que el sol, ardiendo, las lluvias evapore 1?98 Y 1899, la �raduccion corriente de la poesia al Tagalol era lo
Y a l cielo tornen puras, con mi clamor en pas i s1gulente, es dec1r, la estancia referida:
D.ejn que un ser amigo. mi fin tetiiprano llore;
'Sintang Pilipinas, lupa kong hinirang
Y en las serenas tardes,. cuando par nll alguien ore;
Sakit na sakit ko, ngayon ay pakinggan .l
Ora tambien, oh Patria, par mi descanso a Dias.
Huling paalam ko't Sa iyo'y iiwan
Ora por todos cuantos murieron sin· vent�ra; Ang lahat at madlang inirog sa buh�y.'
Par cuantos padccieron tormentos sin igual;
Par nuestras pobres madres, que gimen su amargura; Y al Ingles por Charles Derbyshire ha sido traducida esta parte
Por huerfanos y viudns, por presos en tortura, como sigue:
Y ora i:or ti, que veas tu redenci6n final. My fatherland adored, that sadness to my sorrow lends
'Y cuando en noche oscura se envuelva el cementerio, Beloved Filipinas, hear now my last good-bye!
Y solos s6lo muertos queUen velando alU, I give thee· all, parents and kindred and friends;
No turbes su repoSo, no turbes el misterio; For I go where no slave before the. oppressor bends
Tal vcz acordes oigas de citara o salterio; Where faith can never kill and God 11eigns o'er on high!'
Soy yo, querida Patria, yo que te canto a ti,
lo cual indica fuera de toda du.da racional de que el Dr. Rizal
1y cuando ya mi tumba, de todos olvidada, habria deseado que todo lo que hubiera de dejar seria hcredado por
No tenga cruz ni piedra que marquen su luger, la Patria, la poesia venia a ser la expresi6n de que el documento
Dejn que la are el hombi'e, la esparza con la azada,
expusiese sus miis profundos sentimientos no quita ni hace perder
Y mis cenizas, antes que vuelvan a la nada su aar8cter ju1i4ico, de que era un testamento (Tolentino III: 26);
El polvo de tu alfombra que· vayan a formar. Y por estar escrito de s u pufio y letra. debe ser su testamento
1Entonces nada in1porta me pongas en olvido; ol6grafo, valido bajo la legis!aci6n entonces vigente (Axt. 688 CC
Tu atm6sfera, tu espacio, tus valles cruzare; de Espaiia). Si cabe alegar en cohtra de su validez de qu no �
Vibrante y Jimpia nota sere para tu oido; ex_presaba el ufio, mes y dia de su otorgamiento ni Uevaba su firma
Aroma, luz, colores, rumor, canto, gemido, tal coma se requeria en la ley arriba citada, tambien debe decirse
Constante repitiendo la esencin de mi fe. que hay jurisprudencia (Manresa V: 534) que dice que tales re­
' 'Mi pntrio. idolntrada, dolor de mis dolores, quis,tos pueden considerarse satisfechos si las mismos pueden
Querida Filipinas, oye el postrer adi6s. deducirse del cuerpo mismo del testamento, y en cuanto a cste.
Ahi te dejo todo: mis padres, mis amores, punto, tampoco puede .disputarse que las versos de la poesia hist6-
Voy donde no hay eoolavos, verdugos ni opresoresj rica, puestos en co1Te)aci6n con las sucesos ya referidos, no pueden
Donde la fe no mata, donde el que reina es Dio:i. menos de justificar la conclusion de que el documento se escribi6
'Adi6s, padres y hermanos, trozos del alma mia, en la vispera .del dia del fusilamiento. En cuanto a la firma, la
Amigos de la infancia, en el perdido hogar;
l Por Jose Gntmaytan.

' ·· :" ';

(,;
Wil •"1 •

,,
�-
�� ·".;' COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS
. '388
Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.
decision de in Corte Suprema de Espana de! 8 de Juni� de 1918,
.
Jl1eii.cionada por Manresa (\r: 533) indica que este requ1s1to _puede
decirse. cumplido si se puede identificiir 'al autor por . 1os term1nos
.
•
del mismo documento; aparte de que e1·a una imposibilidad para
el Dr. Rizal el haberlo firmado debidamente, porque precisamente
se lo escondia de las autoriciades; y si se dijera de que el docun1ento
nunca lleg6 a presentarse a los Tribunales de Justicia para su
protocolizaci6n dentro de los cincp afios despues de la muerte del
.
testador, tal como se prescribe en el Art 689 del C6digo Civil de
Espafia, contra este argurnento se podr8. alegar de que la protoco­
lizaci6n no se requiere por ese cuerpo legal como condici6n indis­
pensable pnra la adquisici6n de la propiedad par medio de un tes­
tamento, como asi se requiere bajo el presente C6digo Civil de
Filipinas. A -la verdad, desde 1.a aprobaci6n de la ley nUmero 2645,
la prot.ocolizaci6n del testamento se requeTia en la legislaci6n an­
terioT, solamente paTa servir de prueba de autentiCidad. Sabre
esta cuesti6n, nadie en Filipinas, ni el mismo demandante, discute
y alega que el 'Ultimo Adi6s' fuese. abra ap6crifa del Di·. Rizal i
al contrario, ln demanda de autos debe interpTetarse en el sentido
de que admite su autenticidad. La poesia como expresi6n de la
Ultima voluntad del Dr. Rizal· ya ha sido protocolizada por la his­
toria. y habiendo el heroe mandado que a Filipinas se debia de
dejar todo lo que tenia, y siendo esa una v8.lida disposici6n par
cuanto que el Dr. Rizal no habia dejado herederos forzosos se
importe la conclusi6n de que al demandante no debe de adjudicarse
la posesi6n de Ins reliquias en cuesti6n. En resumcn, tanto las
pruebas con10 la misma historia son cadversas al demandante. Po1·
otra pa"rte, antes de dejar estc mundo para pasar a la otTa vid�
11donde la ie no n1ata y cl que reina .es Dios", el Dr. Riz:sl habia
dispuesto que esas reliquias pai·a siempre fuesen de la propiedad
de Fiipinas. Y en estos tiempos cua
. ndo vemos renacer las enfer­
medades similares a las del siglo pasado: la vida egoista y vanidasa
tle los rices, la miseria de .los p0Qres1 el ·civismo artificia.11 las inge­
rencias c\e la coi::tumbre y del extranjero, to.nto que, no parece sino
que la ensefianza de RiZJ.9.l ya se ha puesto en olvida por la marcha
·inexoi·able de los afios, bueno es, que esas reliquias se conserven
para fa posteridad; y no se baga repetir el pasaje 7obTe la Tepar­
tici6n de las rop:as del Seiiar:
'Postquam a;tem crucifiXerunt eum, diviserunt vestinienta ejus,
sorten1 n1ittentes f ut in1pleretur quad dictun1 est per Prop}letan·..
VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963 389
Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.
�
die 'tcm: Diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea, et supervestem meam
miserunt sortem. Despues que le hubieron crucificado, repar..
tieron entre si sus vestidos, echando �uertes; con esto se cum­
pli6 . la profecia que dice: Repartieron entre si mis vestidos,
y sortearon mi tUnica.' (Matt. XXVll: 36)
pa� que las ensefianzas de Rizal sirven de recuerdo imperecedero
dcl sufrimiento y sacrificio supremo del hCroe,. para las generaCiones
par venir!'
,
It is apparent that the law was given a strained inter­
pretation.
Rizal's "Ultimo Adios" is a literary piece of work and
was so intended. If it were intended as a will the poem
would have been entitled "Ultima Voluntad" and not
·
"Ultimo Adios." The words:
"Ahi, te dejo todo, mis padres,
mis amores",
in the third line of the 13th stanza of the poem, merely
express a thought of parting, not of bequeathing. Besides,
Rizal at that time has· no known property worthwhile
bequeathing to his beloved Philippines or to which his
country could" be instituted as heir. It is also i:o be noted
that the word "dejo" whose English equivalent is "leave"
was, :;ipparently, wrongly translated into "give" by Charles
Derbyshire, whose English version of "Ahi, te dejo todo,
mis padres, mis amores'' is, "To thee I give all, my parents,
'
my kindred and friends''·
An instrument which merely expresses a last wish as a
thought or advice but does not contain a disposition of
property and was not executed with animus testandi,
cannot legally be considered a will. Such instrument, like
Rizal's "Ultimo Adios", may be considered a will in the
grammatical sense, but not in the legal or juridical sense.
The_ mandatory provisions of the Spanish Civil Code
of 1889 on holographic wills, the imperative application
. .
 COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS
390
Mont inola vs. Herbosa, et al.
court by g1vmg the
of which was evaded by the trial
etation, are as follows:
sa me a strained and alien interpr
"A.RT. 688. Holographic ,vills can only be executed by persons of
full age.
In order that the will b_e valid it must be drawn � n s �mp. ed
_
paper corresponding to the year of its execution, written l�
entirety by the testator and signed by him, and must contain a
statement of the year, month and day of its execution.
If it should contain any erased, corrected, or interlined words,
the testator must identify them over his signature.
Foreigners may execute holographic wills in their own language.''
"ART. 689. Holographic wills must be protocoled and shall be
presented for this purpose to the judge of first instance of the
Jo.st domicile of the testator, or to the one of the place where he
.
died within five years from the day of the testator: s death. With­
out this requisite it shall not be valid."
Assuming arg uendo that Rizal's "Ultimo Adi6s", -partic­
ularly the third line of the 13th stanza, was a holographic
will the non-compliance with the foregoing mandatory
�
pro isions of the Spanish Civil Code rendered the will
worthless.
The trial court lastly held that if Rizal had left any
property the same i5 still subject to the superior lien of
the State for the payment of the Spanish judginent of
indemnity for l'lOD,000.00 against him and his heirs. e �
cannot sustain this holding. The charge of the Spams h
Crown against Rizal was for a crime with political com­
plexion, for "founding i'uicit associations", as � means
that
of inciting or inducing rebellion. It is a legal axiom
political a ts or a_cts
upon a change of sovereignty, all c;
with political complexion become n\lll and vmd.
Pollard vs.
The Supreme Court of the United States in
Suprem� Court
Hagan ( 1845), 3 How., 210, quoted by the
.. of the Philippines in People vs. Perf'.ecto,
43 Phil. 887,
said:
VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963 391
Montinola vs. Herbosa, e t al.
"* * \'I It cannot be admitted that the King o f Spain could by
ti:eaty or ot!ierwise, impart to the United States any of his royal
prerogatives;" much less can it be admitted that they have capacity
to receive or power to exe:rcise them. Every nation acquiring ter­
ritory, by treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject to the Consti­
tution and laws of its own government, and not according to those
of the government ceding it."
its
The furidamental principles for the protection of the life,
liberty and property of the individual "which are the basis
of all free governments" and upon which the American
nation was built, acted as a restriction upon the exercise
of the authority of Congress over the' Philippines. (Balzac
vs. Puerto Rico, 258, U.S. 298, 66 L. ed. 627). Conse­
quently, such crimes as Iese majeste and scandalum
magnatum, offenses committed against the high officials
of the Government of the Crown, were crowded out of this
jurisdiction upon the effectivity of the Treaty of Paris.
It follows that upon the change of sovereignty and by
virtue of the Treaty of Paris on April 1, 1899, which
ceded the Philippines to the United States of America,·
all political acts or. acts with political complexion of the
Spanish Crown, the former sovereign, including the afore­
stated judgment of the Consejo de G uerra against Rizal,
became fpso facto· null and void:
It is now also legally impossible to enforce the judgment
of indemnity against the Rizal relics, for under Sec. 6,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, and Art. 1144 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines, a _judgment can be enforced by
motion within 5 years from the date of _its entry, and
thereafter within a period of 10 years by an ordinary
action, provided it has not been barred by the statute of
limitations. The judgment in question having been en­
tered more than 65 years ago is no longer enforceable
and cannot be revived legally.
The appellant cont\onds that he acquired ownership of
the six Rizal relics in litigation by pu_rchase from Dofia
 COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963 393
39i
Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al. Montino/a vs. Herbosa, et al.

Trinidad Rizal by means of the public instrument of sale, 3. Una caja de colecci6n de caracoles reunidas par mi
hermano, Dr. Jose Rizal, en Dapit.an, entre las aiios iB92 a l
ExhibifB. The Rizal relics in litigation are the following: .
1896; etc.;
!. The alcohol lamp wherein the poem "Mi Ultimo
4. Un album de familia de! Dr. Jose Rizal, fechado en Lon-
Adi6s" was hidden; dres el 15 de Junio de 1888, etc.;
2. The original painting of Rizal in oil by Juan Luna; 6. Diccion �rio Espaiiol con las iniciales "J .R.";
3. The original crayon ·painting of Leonor Rivera by 6. Sibi!a Comana (Cuestionario) de! Dr. Jose Rizal;
Rizal; 7. Poemas del �r. Jose Rizal en su pufio y Ietra;
4. A silver pen of Rizal which he won as first prize in B Un,i;i .. larga-vista de aluminio del Dr. Jose Rizal, con las
.. :
a Ji terary con test; 1n1c1ales "J .R." y "Landres 1888";

5. The woolen clothes of Rizal which he wore in Europe 9. Algunas sabres con sellas d_cl ·nr. Jose Rizal; etc.;
and America; and 10. Un par de pesas de hierro de! Dr. Jose Rizal;
6. The two top hats of Riz:i.l. �1. Pintura en Oleo cuando yo (Trinidad Rizal) era joven;
12, LB.mpara d e 1alcohol donde se ha aguardado 'Mi Ultimo
Exhibit B entitled "Escritura de Venta" enumerates Adi6s' del Dr. Jose Rizal;

and describes sixteen Rizal relics allegedly sold by Dofia 13. Pluma de plata coma primer premio de un certamen del
Trinidad to Enrique P. Montinola for the price of l'l.OD. Dr. Jose Rizal;

The instrument of sale was notarized by Notary Public 14. Toda la ropa de la.na y dos chisteras del Dr. Jose Rizal;

I
etc.; .
M. D. Melotindes in and for the City of Manila on Septem­
15. El "original en Oleo del Dr. Jose Rizal par el pintor Juan
ber 13, 1950, the same date of its supposed execution by Luna;
Dofia Trinidad Rizal. It reads: 16. El origin.al de Marfa Clara en crayon por el Dr. Jose Rizal.

"ESCRITURA DE VENTA I : L, firmo la presente en la Ciudad

EN. TESTIMONI-0 DE LO CUA

j
de Manila, I .F., hoy 13 de Septiembre de 1950.
SEPAN TODOS LOS QUE LA PRESENTE VIEREN:
QUE YO, TRINIDA.D RIZAL, soltera, Filipino,, mayor de edad, (Sgd.) TRINIDAD RIZAL
y vecina de la Ciudad de Manila, I.F., por y en consideraci6n a
la sum a de UN PESO (Pl. 00) , moneda filipina, que en este acto he
i
'
EN PRESENCIA DE:

l
(Sgd.) VALENTIN G. MONTES
recibido a mi ontera satisfacci6n de! Sr. ENRIQUE P. MONTI-.
(Sgd.) ERIBERTO D. CORDON
NOLA, filipino, mayor de edad, soltero, y tambien vecino de la .
.
Giudnd de Manila, I. F., VENDO, ·CEDO, Y TRASPASO al dicho
TIEPiiBLICA DE FILIPINAS)
Sr. ENRIQUE P. MONTJNOLA sus herederos y causahabientes,
CIUD�D DE MANILA) S.S.
las siguientes a1·ticulos personales de mi hermano, Dr. Jos� Rizal,
que n1e ha dejado coma herederU:: �n la Ciudad de Manila, I. F., hoy a 13 de Septiembre, 1950,
nnte mi, el infrascrito notario ptiblico, pcrsonalmente compareci6
1. Unas noventa. (90) ca1·tas. de mi hermano1 Dr, Jose Rizal, iDa ..Trinidad· Rizal, sin certificado de residencia par razon de su
algunas de ellas sin firma, todas en su pu�o y letrn; etc. ;
edad, a quien day fe · de conocel' par ser la misma persona que
2. Una caja optical para graduar gafas, de mi hermano, otorg6 el precedente documento de venta, y ratific6 ser al mismo
Dr. Jose Riznl1 etc.; un acto de su libre voluntad y otorgamiento .
. .

�·
.: � �.
'
 394
COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS
al.
\ VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963

Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.

395

Montinola vs. Herbosa, et

mento en el lugar
Appellant also alleged that upon the execution of Exh. B,
cual, fir mo y sello este docu he took possession of all the things sold, except the six
En testimonio de lo .
y fee.ha mencionado
�
s m s arr1ba.
( 6) relics in question which, upon Dofia Trinidad's re­
ES
(Sgd.) M. D. MELOT!ND quest, were left in her possession until her death. Dofia
. Notari• Public•
de 1951
Trinidad Rizal died on May 9, 1951.
Hasta el 31 de Diciembre
Defendant-appellee Estanislao Herbosa, nephew of Dofia
Reg. Not. No. 172 Trinidall Rizal, admits that he has in his possession the
Pag. No. 94 following three (3) Rizal relics in litigation:
Libro No. I
1. The alcohol lamp where Rizal hid his poem "Mi
Serie de 1950."

According to appellant, the prior

private inst::umer:t_, . xd � Ultimo Adi6s";
ed by Dona Tnm. a 1
I
2. The original painting of Rizal by Juan Luna; and
hibit c, dated July 25, 1949, sign
Rizal stated the true price of 1'20
rellc; sold by Dofia Trinidad Rizal
,000.00 of all the R1za
to him and enumerated
\
;
3. The original crayon painting· of Leonor Rivera by
Rizal. .
in Exhibit B. Exhibit C states: He claims that the alcohol lamp was given to him by his
aunt, Dofia· Trinidad Rizal; that he took said lamp from
"RECIBO Dr. Ubaldo who was then in possession thereof, sometime
y heredera principal
del
Jose Rizal in the last month of 1950 or the first month of 1951;
y0 hermann. manor de1 Dr ·
.
m; a1r11go ·lilfimo Don
s o CEDO, VENDO y TRAS
• t
PASO a favor de . that in compliance with Dofia Trinidad Rizal's last wish,
�� � �
de m1
ientes articulos personales he lighted the alcohol lamp beside her bi<�r as shown in
r q e p. ?liontinola los sigu
Rizal: the "Satur.day Mirror" pictorial of May 13, 1951, Exh. l;
difunto hermano el Dr. Jose
PERSONA LES DEL DR. JOSE RIZAL; that the crayon painting of Leonor Rivera was likewise
1 ' VEINTI�OCHO CARTAS RIZAL;
GRADUAR LOS OJOS DE DR. JOSE
2. UNA CAJA OPTICAL PARA
FECHADO EN LON-
given to him by Dofia Trinidad in the middle of 1950
ILIA DEL DR. JOSE RIZAL,
3 UN ALBUM DE FAM
•

1888 i
together with the painting of Rizal by Juan Luna because,
VIERNES, 15 DE JUNIO DE ,
DRES EL
. CARACOLES REUNIDAS POR EL
DR. according to Dofia Trinidad, tee two paintings should not
"A DE COLECCI6N DE
4. UNA c� .
EL 23 DE FEBRERO DE J.896 . be separated. · ' ·

J'OSE RIZAL EN DAPITAN

Defendant-appell.ee Macario Ofiana claims that nn June
. {Preclo Total 19, 1950, at the inauguration of the reconstructed Calamba
Manila, 25 de julio de 1949
Recibido:
family home of Rizal, then President Quirino of the Phil­
P20,000.00) ippines verbally directed Luis Montilla, Director of the
(Sgd.) TRINIDAD RIZAL
National Library and Chairman of the Philippine Histo­
(Vendedo1·a) rical Committee, to retrieve and collect all the furniture
MALAYA F. PALILEO
and relics left by Rizal. Acting on said directive, Director
(Sg d.)
Testigo Montilla requested appellee Ofiana, then Secretary of the
(Sgd.) J. cnuz.
· Testigo"
Committee, to gather and take possession of the scattered

II
 COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963 397
396

Mo11tinola vs. Herbosa, et al. Montinola vs. H erbosa, et al.

1949, fecha del Exh. C, ya hubiese convenido con Dofia Trinidad

furniture and relics left by the national hero from the dt: que la. compra oabarcaba todas las 16 partidas consignadas en
surviving members of Rizal's family in Manila and the el otro documento, Exh, B, el Juzgado enc.uentra incomprensible
nearby provinces. As soon as appellee Ofiana acquired c6mo es que en aquel primer doc.umento Exh. C, no se menciona
said relics and other personal property lett by the hero, que la veiita real ·y verdade11amente incluye todas .aquellas 16 par ­
he deposited them at the Rizal Shrine at Fort Santiago. t�das; pues, -no existia raz6n alguna que justificara la omisi6n d e
las doce (12) partidas que fueron suprimidas. E l Juzgado tam­
Appellee Ofiana admitted that among the relics thµs de­
bien encuentra bastante n.normat que el comprador hubiese permi­
posited by him at the Shrine are the hero's twC> top hats tido qlle Ia parte de mas valor, de las efectos que habia comprado,
delivered by the hero's nephew, Dr. Ubaldo, and the Y.g. la lampa1·illa de alcohol, tuviera que quedarse en posesi6n d e
woolen clothes delivered by his sister Dona Trinidad Rizal, la vendedora. Y s i Montinola dice que eso s e debe a que Dofia
but denied having received the silver pen which Rizal had Trinidad no queria despojarse de esas reliquias mientras ella vi­
won as first prize in a literary contest. Appellant Ofiana viese,-que es, par cierto, buena explicaci6n-, el Juzgado no com­
prende. el par que Montinola. no exigiese siquiera una nota al efecto
made an inventory of all the Rizal relics in his custody
de que Doiia Trinidad retenia parte de ios efectos vendidos. Y no
for the Committee, marked Exhibits 1-0fiana, 1-A to se dig!\ que este requerimiento seria dcficil, y a l a. vez violento,
1-K, inclusive. Director Montilla made a formal repor.t . par el respeto que Montinola tenia a la vendedora, porque. par 10s
to the ·President of the Philippines of the work of the nlismos Exhs. B y C, v:emos que apesar de ese aprecio, Montinola
Committee in charge of the gathering and collection of al fin Y ·al cabo, pidi6 o dej6 que sc otorgara el documento d e
the hero's mementos and memorabilia, which were in­ venta a su .favor. AdemE.s, si coma Montinola dice, que el precio
total de la venta de las 16 partidas era de P20,000.00 y que el lo
stalled in Fort Santiago as part of the permanent
habfa satisfecho, pagando parte de ello el julio de 1949 al otor­
Rizaliana exhibits. The furniture remained in the Rizal ·g·arse el primer documento, Exh. C, (no dice cuanto) y entregando
family home at Calamba. cl restante en la fecha e inmediatamente antes de la fecha de!
The court a quo refused to give effect to Exhibit B in segundo doc.umento, Exh. B, el 1�r de Septiembre de 1950, el Juz­
relation to Exhibit C · of plaintiff-appellant because of gado no comprende· el par que tuviera qtie dec1rse en el segundo

certain circumstances which strongly militated against documento de que el precio era solamente de un peso (Pl.00). Y si
dice :MO!Jtinola que Csto se hizo porque !Dofia Ti;nidad no queria
the validity and efficacy of Exhibit B, and affected the �ue se publicara la venta de las reliquiras dei heroe, su explicaci6n
integrity thereof. The trial court said: viene en pugna con e� Exh. C, el primer documento, porque no bay
11Examinadas las pruebas, el Juzgado encuentra que 1n causa del euesti6n ·de· que en aquel documento Doii.a Trinidad hizo piiblico
demandante esta sostenida par un documento notaria� Exh. B; Y ante los testigos de ra "Citada venta, siendo uno de ellos Malaya
por el testimonio del Notario PUblico Sr. Manuel D, Melotindes. Palileo, de qu_e ella se despojaba de las efectos de su herma·no.
Est<0 por un lado; por otro la.do, el Juzgado ha notado que el docu· Finalmente, mientras que Montinola y el Exh. C dicen que el
n1ento en cuesti6n es duplicado al carb6n y no es el original, aunque precio total era de P20,000.00, el Juzgado ha notado que las cifras
lleva la firma· de la vendedora; pero la actuaci6n del Notal'io que 'P20,000.00' en el Exh. C, demuestran borrones, Agregado este de­
lo hlabia ratificado, deja alga que desear porque la copia oficial talle al heeho de que segun sus libritos (Exhs. 3 y 4) todo lo que
que tenia y que no la present6 al Juzgado como asi requiere la ley retiro de! banco e n la feeha de! otorgamiento de! Exh. C, el 25 de
dentro del mes de la ratificaci6n del documento, habiendolo sometido jullo de 1949 era l a suma de P3,000.00, (y nada hay en las ]lruebas
cl mismo el afio 1955, 6 sea cinco (5) aiios despues. Luego, de que demuestre que haya reti�ado fondos 6 que· tuviern monedn
ser cierta la declarnci6n de Montinola de que el 25 de Julio de contante suficiente en In· fechn del ·��h. B), el Juzgado encuentra

- ...,.,.,.
� :; "• 'lfUi!
\ i� I

:;; '
.,,,.,. i;i��J
�i.
39 8 COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS
Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.
mas creible la declaraci6n de Josefa Equia de que la canti dad pa·
gada par Montinola el 25 de julio de 1949 era de P2,000.00 y no
P20,000.00. De lo cual, el Juzgado tendra que concluir que parte del
Exh. C, adolece de una. nlj:;eraci6n por no decir otra. cosa. Y no
habiendo nada en las pruebas q\ie demuestre que ademtis de esta
•uma entregada el 29 de julio de 1949, Montinola hubiese pagado
otra suma 0 sum�s, y habiendo el mismo declarado que el precio
<ie Pl. 00 en el Exh. B otorgado el 13 da septiembre de 1950 no
era la verdad y que el verdadero precio era de f'20,000,00, la con­
clusi6n a que el Tribunal necesariamente tendra que llegtir es que
el docurnento en cuesti6n, Exh. B, se habia firm.ado par Doiia Tri­
nidad (si es que realmente se lo habia firmado) sin baber ella
recibido el precio convenido y que el mencionado documento, par
tanto, carecia faltaba de consideraci6n. Esta conclusi6n est.a. rema­
chada par el detalle de que si fuera verdad que Montinola era el
dvefio de los objetos en cuesti6n y que solamente se habia conve­
nido que Dafia Trinidad se los retuviera en su posesi6n mientras
ella viviese (habiendo e!la fallecido el 9 de mayo de 1951), el Juz­
gndo no cornprende c6mo es que en ninguil.8. parte de sus pruebas
se ha dernostrado lo que Montinala habia hecho para poderlos re­
·
coger por ser suyos, inrnediatarnente desp�s de rnorir Dofia Tri­
nidad, pues SU rnuerte se public6 en los peri6dicos (·Exh. 1) e hizo
el requerirniento a los demandados mlis de un aiio despuCs del 9
de mayo de 1951 (Exh. D), 6 sea el 23 de septiembre de 1952".
(pp. 276-279, Record on Appeal).
'
We agree with the foregoing findings of the trial court
which are borne out by the records and the evidence,
We further hold that:
·
( 1 ) Exhibit B is a separate and distinct contract from
Exhibit C, and that Exhibit B cannot stand valid as a
contract of sale, for the reason that the stated sale price
of 1'1.00 for things worth at least 1'20,000.00 is so insigni·
ficant as to amount to no price at all. It is a price that is
"irrisorio" according to the Italian commentators. While
the law (Art. 1447, now 1469, new Civil Code) does not
require, for the validity of the contract of sale, that the
price be adequate, it ordains. that the price be real and
not fictitious. It is obvious that the price of l'l.00 stated
VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963 399
Montinola vs. Herbosa, et. al.
�n . Exhibit B is not merely grossly inadequate, but that
it is not real, that it is fictitious. Neither can the instru­
ment (Exhibit B) be considered valid as a donation under
�t. 1471, Civil Code, there being no showing that' it was
mtended as a gift. ·
(2) D?iia Tri��da� Rizal could not have sold the six ( 6 )
.
Rizal _ ht1gat10n to Enriq
rehcs m ue P. Montinola on Sep­
tember 13; 1950 because the alcohol lamp, the portrait
,
of Leonor Rivera by Rizal, and the painting of Rizal by
Juan Llina were then in the custody of her nephew
Dr. Aristeo Ubaldo, and three months later, she gave said
.
rehcs
to her other nephew, defendant-appellee Estanislao
Herbosa, while the two top hats remained in the custody
of Dr. Ubaldo until he delivered the same to defendant­
appellee, Macario Ofiana. Dofia Trinidad turned over
directly to said Ofiana, the woolen clothes of Rizal. It is
to be remembered that Dofia Trinidad Rizal was reared
and �r�d in the honest and honorable ways of our fathers,
and it is unthinkable that she could have been guilty of
d?uble dealm . _
. � and dishonesty, of deceit and estafa, by
ahenatmg agam certain Rizal relics which she had already
sold.
( 3) We give no credence to the testimony of the alleged
buyer, plaintiff-appellant Montinola, that he did not take
possession of the six ( 6 ) Rizal relics in question because
�ofia Trinidad Rizal requested tliat she remain in posses­
s10n thereof during her lifetime.
( 4) Even if Exhibit B were given effect, the execution
of sa�d public instrument did not constitute symbolic
.
trad1t1on
because of the agreement that the vendor Dofia
Trinidad Rizal, would remain in possession of the 'things
�old. 1!-�nce, the buyer did not acquire ownership, for
In the civil. law, ownership does not pass by mere consent
but by tradition.
(S)_ , The action of the alleged vendee, Montinola, is
 COURT OF APPEALS REPORTS
400
Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.
on May 9,
barred by !aches. Dona Trinidad Rizal died
only on November
1951 .· Plaintiff's action was brought
delay of several
28, 1955. There was an unreasonable
h no satisfactory
years in bringing the action for whic
, 45 Phil. 381,
explanation was given (Tuason vs. Marquez
brin ging the action
where there was delay of 16 months in
ed by !aches ). At
and the Court held that it was barr
least, plaintiff's unreasonable delay in
.suing is indicative
(Yatco vs. Prieto,
of the Jack of merit of his claim·
Dec . 29, 1961 ; Gelenin
CA-G. R. No. 27068-R, promulgated
vs. De los Reyes, CA-G. R. No. 1050
6-R, June 30, 1956 ;
690; Sanchez vs.
Veyra vs. Avila, 1 0. G., No. 10 (194 2), p.
1 , 1958; Buena­
Salazar, CA-G. R. No. 16425-,R, Apri l 1
ventura vs. David, 37 Phil. 436 ).
ellee Her­
With. respect to the claim of defendant-app
bosa, we find that his possession of the
alcohol lamp, the
l, and the paint­
crayon portrait of Leonor Rivera by Riza
ired by lucrative title
ing' of Rizal by Juan Luna, acqu
is equi valent to a
from his aunt, Dona Trinidad Rizal,
l Code, paragraph
title, pursuant to Art. 559 of the Civi
one of which provides :
acquired in good
uArt. 559. The possession of personal property
nny
Nevertheless, one who has lost
faith is equivalent to a title.
recov er
fully deprived thereof, ma)'
movable or hns been unlaw
g it."
from any person po:;sessin
failed to prove
The plaintiff-appellant Montinola having
of said Rizal
that he was the owner or prior possessor
had been unlaw­
relics and that he had lost the same or
fully deprived thereof, has established no
case for re·
covery of possession of the mov ables from appellee
O. G. 5075 , the
Herbosa. In Sotto vs. Enage (CA) 43
ice Reye s, J. B. L.,
Court of Appeals, speaking thru Mr. Just
civilian and jurist, said:
in actions for the recovery
"The Court is of the opinion that
inquiry is not whether the
of movable property, the subject of
VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1963 401
Montinola vs. Herbosa, et al.
P.ossessor of the chattel has, or has not, a good and indefeasible
title; ·but whether plaintiff is the former owner and has been
illegally deprived thereof, This is clear from the text <>f article
464 (now Art. 669) ,of our ·Civil Code, paragraph 1 : • •. •
�
For t e purposes of. facilitating tl'ansactions on movable prop­
erty, which ar.e usually done without special formalities, article
"!'
464 (no"'. A . 659) of the Civil Code establishes, not only a mere
P:!.'esumpt1on in favor of the possessor of the· chattel, but an nctual
right, valid against the true owner, except upon proof of loss or
illegal depriya ion. �
This proof is rin indispensable requisite, a
·
_
si:ie qua. n�n, . 1n order that the owner of the · chattel may contest
tlie apparent. title of its possessor. Without adequate proof of
such loss -Or illegal deprivation, the present holder can not be put
0�1 his defense, even if, as possessor, he has no actual proprietary
�1tle to the movable property in question. Art. 464 (now Art. 559)
�n �
fac assumes that the possessor is as yet not the owner; for it
1� obvious that where the possessor has come to acquire indefeasible
title by, let us say, adverse possession for the necessary period no
proof of loss or . illegal deprfvation could avail the :former o ner �
of the chattel. He would no longer be entitled to recover it under
nny conditions.
�ow, the evidence for the plaintiff is plainly inadequate to cs­
tabh�h the alleged illegal deprivJlt.ion or confiscation (accidental
.
loss is not involved) ; and for this reason his action must fail. * * "'
On the whole, we a·re of the opinion that the evidence does not
\Varrant the finding of confiscation made in the decision of the
it
trial court. A i·ending of the decision appealed from clearly shows
that the trial judge lost sight of the rule established in Article
464 (now Art, 569) of the Civil CodG, and prooeeded on the theory
f
that de e�dant must establish a better title in himself as against·
the pla1nt1ff appellee. This position, as we have poiiited uut is not
corr';"t: the gist of the question is whether plaintiff was ; lei>:ally i
deprived of the automobile, not whether defendant has better title
thcr�to. � �
efenda t's possession of the chattel in good faith is
�
.
suf }c1ent �1tle until the illegal deprivation of the former O\Vner is
sut1sfacto1·Ily proved, \Vhich was not done." * * *
Over and above the reasons stated for the intrinsic
�
invali ity of the Deed of Sale to plaintiff-appellant Monti­
nola, lS the paramount consideration that the signature
.
\"
.. i . ·.'<!'•'
..>(',"
402 COURT OF APPEALS REPORT:::. VOL. 3, FEBRUARY 14, 1 963 403

Kao Ngo Ang vs • . Republic Kao Ngo Ang vs. Republic

of the supposed vendee Doiia Trinidad Rizal is a forgery. CIVIL REGISTRY; ENTRY; CORRECTION OF NON-CLERICAL ERROR;
RULE.-When ian entry in t}le civil registry, assuming it to be
This Court with the conformity of appellant and appel­
�
lees, by Re olution of October 19, 1961, referred Exhibits
erroneous, is one that cannot be classified as a clerical error,
its correction should not be sought under the summary pro­
B C 6 and 6-A to 6-I to the National Bureau of In­ ceeding set by Article 412 of the Civil Code, but must be
� �
v sti ation with a view to determining the �enu e�ess u:i threshed out in an .appropriate action where all the parties to
of the si!!Ilature purporting to be that of Dona Tnmdad be affected by the intended correction, including the State,
E
Rizal in xhibit B. On February rz, 1962, the National are made respondents.
.
Bureau of Investigation's report was received by this
. APPEAL from a. judgment of the Court of First Instance
Court, pertinent portion of which is as follows :
of Manila. Vasquez, J.
"FINDINGS-CONCLUSION :
;
Compa ative examina±ion of the specimens
received reveals t at
.
� The facts are stated in the opinic:m of the Court.
cant differences in .handw riting character1st1cs
there are signifi
signatures. Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro .and
existing between the questioned and the snmple .
This indicates that the questioned signatures
were NOT written Solicitor Octavio R. Ramirez for respondent and appellant.
by one1 TRINIDAD RIZAL.'1 Romero & Romero for petitioner and appellee.

As regards the claim of defendant-appcllee Ofiana we •. LUCERO, ].:

also find that his possession of the two top hats acqmred From a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila
from Dr. Aristeo Ubaldo, nephew of Rizal, and of the directing the Local Civil Registrar to change the nation­
woolen clothes, acquired from Doiia Trinidad Rizal, is ality of Kao Ngo Ang, as it appears on the birth certificate
equivalent to a title and that, for the same reasons here­ of his daughter Debbie Ong Ang, from "Filipino" to
tofore given, plaintiff-appellant Montinola has proved no "Chinese," the Solicitor-General appealed contending, in
case for recovery of the possession of said movables from the main, that the supposed erroneous entry is not a
appellee Herbosa. clerical mistake which might be corrected by judicial sanc­
The judgment of the lower court is reversed. The com­ tion under Article 412 of the New Civil Code especially
plaint is dismissed, with costs against plaintiffcappellant. where, as in the case under 6onsideration, the evidence
adduced is utterly insufficient to establish the commission
Castro and Villanwr, JJ., concur. of a clerical error.
Judgmenl reversed. In support of · his petition Kao Ngo Ang alone testified
and his testimony, insofar as it bears upon the alleged
erroneous entry, .is as follows :
"Q.-In this birth certificate, Exh. A, there appears in the space
[No. 28321-R. February 14, 1963]
corresponding to the father of the child your nationality here ap·
KAo NGO ANG. petitioner and appellee, vs. REPUIJLIC or pears as Filipino, What can you. tell about that?

THE PHII.IPPINES, respondent and· appellant. A.-I did not tell I am a Filipino.