unde r in vali d acts or ta x la ws are refun dabl e, even if the paym ents were voluntary (E ast Asiatic Co.

Ltd. vs. City

of
Davao,
L-16253,
Aug.
21,
1962).4 . S T A T U T O R Y
CONSTRUCTION;
WEIGHT
O F O P I N I O N S O R R U L I N G S O F C E R T A I N GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. Opinions and rulings of
officials of the government called upon toexecute or implement administrative laws, command much respect and weight (Regalado
vs. Yulo, 61Phil. 173 Grapilon vs. Municipal Council of Carigara, L-12347, May 30, 1961).D E C I S I O NPAREDES, J p:This is an
application for the registration of a residential land, with a house, containing an area of 465square meters, situated in the barrio of
San
Miguel,
Iriga,
Camarines
Sur,
more
particularly
described
in plan PSU 123636 (Exh.
A), and in the technical description (Exh. 4), by Jose Margate who claims tohave purchased the property from Julia Rabacal, for
P4,000.00. An order of general default was entereda g a i n s t t h e w h o l e w o r l d , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e
D i r e c t o r o f L a n d s w h o d i d n o t f i l e a n y f o r m a l opposition, and Julia Rabacal and her minor children who opposed
the application, on the ground thatthe prop erty was under guardianship proceedi ngs when sold; that the sale was
not auth ori zed by thecou rt; that the p urchase pr ice of P4,000.00 was not ful ly paid, as there was a rem aining
balance of P 5 0 0 . 0 0 a n d t h a t t h e m a r k e t p r i c e o f t h e l o t a n d h o u s e w a s P 1 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . A f t e r d u e
h e a r i n g , t h e registration court, confirmed the title of the applicant to the parcel of land in question, and ordered thatt h e s a m e
be registered in the name of Jose F. Margate, widower, citizen of the Philippines,
w i t h residence at Iriga, Ca m arines Sur, and that onc e the decision has become final, the decree and
titlethereof issue. Oppositors appealed to the Court of Appeals which certified the case to Us, stating thatthe issues involved are
purely legal in character.As found by t he registration court, the parcel of land and hous e, in question, ori ginally
belon ged toF r a n c i s c o V e l a w h o w a s i n p o s s e s s i o n t h e r e o f a s e a r l y a s 1 8 8 9 . A f t e r h i s d e a t h i n
1 9 0 3 , h e w a s succeeded by Pedro E van gelista, who purchased the l and. Evangeli sta later sold the land t o
ValentinMagistrado, who possessed it until he sold the same to a certain Tinay, mother-in-law of Vicente Brinaswho built a house
thereon and possessed the land until he sold it to Dr. Julio Berina. Dr. Julio Berinadied on October 15, 1945, survived by his widow,
Julia Rabacal and his minor children Jesus, Corazon,Julio, Fe, Helen, Ramon and Ely, all surnamed Berina, the oppositors herein.In
1946, Julia Rabacal filed a petition for the appointment of a guardian of the persons and propertiesof the m inor children of Dr.
Berina, which p etition was a m ended on June 3, 1946 (E xhibit 1). JuliaRabacal was appoi nted guardian of h er
m inor children and letters of gua rdia nship was issued in her f a v o r ( E x h . 5 ) . O n M a r c h 1 6 , 1 9 4 8 , a
petition (Exh. B), was filed by the guardian, Julia Rabacal,

alleging that it was necessary to sell parcel 4 of the inventory (Exh. 6), in order to defray the expensesin the prosecution of Civil
Case No. 919 and for the support and education of the wards. This petitionwas approved by the court, in its order of May 23, 1948,
authorizing the guardian to sell the residentiallot and its improvements.Applicant Jose F. Margate, who was then intending to buy a
house and lot of one Mr. Brown, happenedto m eet Julia Rabacal who offered to sell to him the residential lot in
question, fo r P5,00 0.00. After negotiations, the parties agreed on the selling price of P4,000.00. After the agreement, Rabacal
begangetting m oney from Margat e, such that when Rabacal secured the authorit y to sell, (E xh. C) from
thecourt, she had already obtained from Margate the sum of P500.00, and after having secured the order of authority to sell,
Rabacal showed to Margate a copy of the order. On May 27, 1948, a deed of sale wasexecuted by Julia Rabacal,
ackno wled ged befo re a Not ary Public, Jose Madara, selling t he l and inquestion t o Margate for P4,000.00
(E xh. D), o n which dat e Ma rgate pai d the balance of P3,500.00 toRabacal. At the time the house was already
in a rui nous con dition, bec ause the typ hoon Jean, and for the repair and improvement of the same, Margate spent
around P6,000.00.On the allegation of Rabacal that Margate had still a balance of P500.00 unpaid of the purchase price,the trial
court held that Rabacal and her evidence do not deserve any credence, after the said court hadfound that she had
delibe ratel y d eceived the co urt in the gua rdi anship proc eedings. The trial courtdeclared t ha t not withstanding
the fact that Rabacal ha d sold pa rcel 4 of the inventory, and executed adeed of sal e on May 17, 1948 (E xh.
D), Rab acal still filed Exh. 3, in the guardianship proceedings, asserting that despite her efforts, she was unable to find
a buyer for said parcel of land. The trial courtconcluded that if it is true that Margat e lacked P500.00 or m ore,
Rabacal wo uld ha ve take n a ction against him, considering the fact that from 1948 (date of sale), to the filing of her amended
oppositionin this registration proceeding (1953), nearly 5 years had already elapsed.Oppositors-appellants claim that the registration
court erred (1) in holding that the deed of sale Exh. A,is valid; (2) In ordering the registration of the property, in applicant's name; (3)
In not dismissing theapplication for lack of merits; and (4) In not ordering the registration of the property in the name of
theoppositors.Appellants argu e that the de ed of sale (E xh B), executed by the guardian, Julia Rabacal in favor
of a p p l i c a n t , h a d n o b i n d i n g e f f e c t , b e c a u s e t h e a u t h o r i t y t o s e l l w a s c a n c e l l e d a n d t h e s a l e
w a s n o t approved by the guardianship Court. As appropriately commented by the trial court, the cancellation of the authorit y
to sell did not, and could n o t affect, the rights of the buyer, because "at the tim e that theorder cancelli ng the
autho rity to sell was ente re d, the gu ardi an Juli a Rabac al, had already acted i n accordance with authority Exhibit C,
and sold the land to Jose F. Margate. The authority of the Court

had al rea dy b een e xh au sted , after it was fulfilled by the guardian, and there was not hing to cancel. Moreover,
the cancellati on of the ord er to sell, was entered by the Court due to the deception of the guardian, who informed
the Court that she could not find any buyer of parcel 4 of the inventory. If thec o u r t h a d b e e n i n f o r m e d o f t h e s a l e ,
the
court
would
certainly
not
have
revoked
the
authority.M o r e o v e r , t h e r e v o c a t i o n w a s e n t e r e d w i t h o u t n o t i c e t o t h e p u r c h a s e r J o
s e F . M a r g a t e " . T h e persuasiveness of these disquisitions, cannot be over emphasized. With respect to the lack of
approvalo f t h e s a l e b y t h e c o u r t , H i s H o n o r h e l d t h a t t h e l a w m e r e l y r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e g u a r d i a n
s h o u l d b e authorized, and that the authority to sell did not impose the condition that the deed of sale executed bythe guardian
should be app ro ved b y th e Cou rt. The approval of the sale by the court, under the factsand circum stances

obtaini ng in this case, would then be m erely pro -form a, since the appell ants were not able to show any reason why
the guardianship court would have refused to approve the sale whichwas already a fait accompli and within the authority given by
said court.T h e a p p e l l a n t s s h o u l d b e t h e l a s t t o i m p u g n t h e l a c k o f a p p r o v a l o f t h e s a l e . T h e
defect was notsubstantial so as to render the sal e invalid or void. Being the petitioners vendors in Exhibit B,appellants cannot validly attack the proceedings had in the sale, on
c e r t a i n f o r m a l t e c h n i c a l i t i e s , considering the fact that they were the very persons who requested, obliged and prayed the
court in theguardianship proceedings to approve the said sale, and that they had derived the utmost advantage and benefit out
of the proceeds thereof. They are now estopped from asserting a fact inconsistent with their previous acts.In the original and
amended oppositions, the land and house were admittedly the conjugal property of the deceas ed Dr. Julio Berina and
here in o pposito r Julia Rab acal. Upo n the death of Dr. Berina on O c t o b e r 1 5 , 1 9 4 5 , s a i d p r o p e r t i e s
d e s c e n d e d t o t h e s u r v i v i n g s p o u s e J u l i a R a b a c a l a n d h i s m i n o r children. Under the old Civil Code (whose
provisions should apply), Julia Rabacal was entitled to one-h a l f ( 1 / 2 ) a s h e r s h a r e i n t h e c o n j u g a l p r o p e r t y .
This
being
the
case,
at
least,
the
one -half
p o r t i o n belonging to her which was included in the sale of the entire property to the appellee, could stand asl e g a l
and
valid. In her behalf, she could dispose of her share, even without the benefit of
j u d i c i a l approval which m erely go es to show t hat, the sale of the entire or whole property in question,
wasnot altogether null and void.The rules alle ged to have been vi olated, (Secs. 2, 3 and 4, of Rule 96, Rules of
Cou rt)
refer
to
the proceedings in the guardianship court and not to the proceedings in the registration court, where theRegistrati on Law (A ct
No. 4 95), specifically provi d es the proce dure to be foll owed, in the event the parties in a registration case desire
to have the decision thereof reviewed. The present appeal does notallege fraud in the registration. Moreover, there being a
presumption that the sale in question is valid,

the same can not be attacked collaterally in the registration proceedings. Appellants should have filed aseparate action to avoid or
rescind the said sale, on the ground specified by law.IN VIEW HEREOF, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against
the appellant.Bengzon, C . J ., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ ., concur.Concepcion and Barrera, JJ .,
concur in the result.Padilla and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ ., took no pa