GATCHALIAN v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL partner, as such collected the prize, the office issued the
REVENUE check for P50,000 in favor of Jose Gatchalian and
G.R. No. 45425; April 29, 1939 company, and the said partner. in the same capacity,
Ponente: J. Imperial collected the said check.

FACTS: Having organized and constituted a partnership of

On December 15, 1934, the plaintiffs, all 15 of a civil nature, the said entity is the one bound to pay the
them, each contributed in order to buy a sweepstakes income tax which the defendant collected under the
ticket worth Php 2.00. aforesaid section 10 (a) of Act No. 2833, as amended by
section 2 of Act No. 3761.
That immediately thereafter but prior to December
16, 1934, plaintiffs purchased, in the ordinary course of CARVAJAL V. CA
business, from one of the duly authorized agents of the G.R. No. 98328. October 9, 1997
National Charity Sweepstakes Office one ticket bearing
No. 178637 for the sum of two pesos (P2) and that the FACTS:
said ticket was registered in the name of Jose
Gatchalian and Company. Petitioner is the applicant in a land registration case filed
with Branch 71, Regional Trial Court of
The above-mentioned ticket bearing No. 178637 the Fourth Judicial Region stationed in Antipolo, Rizal.
won one of the third prizes in the amount of P50,000 and Sought to be brought by petitioner under the operation of
that the corresponding check covering the above- the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) is a 96,470
mentioned prize of P50,000 was drawn by the National square meter lot denominated as Lots6846-A, 6846-B,
Charity Sweepstakes Office in favor of Jose Gatchalian 6846-C and 6846-D. Copies of the application were
& Company against the Philippine National Bank, which ordered by respondent Court to be furnished (to) the
check was cashed during the latter part of December, National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
1934 by Jose Gatchalian & Company Administration (NLTDRA) which on March 18, 1987
submitted a report recommending that applicant be
Thereafter, Jose Gatchalian was required by ordered to amend his petition by including the names
income tax examiner Alfredo David to file the and complete postal addresses of the adjoining owners
corresponding income tax return covering the prize won and correcting the discrepancy regarding the boundary
by Jose Gatchalian & Company and that on December lot number along line 2-3 of Lot 6846-D on plan Csd-04-
29, 1934 005516-D.

The defendant made an assessment against On order of respondent Court [trial court], the petition
Jose Gatchalian & Company requesting the payment of was accordingly amended.
the sum of P1,499.94 to the deputy provincial treasurer
of Pulilan, Bulacan. Tthe plaintiffs requested exemption On June 22, 1988, private respondent Solid Homes, Inc.
from the payment of the income tax but it was rejected. filed its opposition stating that a land registered in its
The plaintiffs paid in protest the tax assessment given to name under the Torrens System and covered by then
them. TCT No. N-7873 is almost identical to the property
subject of the application by petitioner. On June 28,
ISSUE: 1988, private respondent filed a motion to lift the order of
Whether the plaintiffs formed a partnership, thus not general default and to admit its opposition on the ground
exempted from paying income tax that its right would be adversely affected by the
application. In the same order dated July 1, 1988,
HELD: respondent Court in the interest of justice set aside the
order of general default in so far as private respondent
Yes, the plaintiffs formed a partnership was concerned and admitted private respondent's
opposition.
The Supreme Court held that according to the
stipulated facts the plaintiffs organized a partnership of a During the hearings conducted on September 13, 1988,
civil nature because each of them put up money to buy a September 27, 1988, October 4, 1988, October 11,
sweepstakes ticket for the sole purpose of dividing 1988, October 11, 1988, November 22, 1988, December
equally the prize which they may win, as they did in fact 6, 1988, petitioner presented his evidence on the
in the amount of P50,000. question as to whether or not he had a registrable right
over the land in question.
The partnership was not only formed, but upon the
organization thereof and the winning of the prize, Jose On February 28, 1989, the petitioner's application for
Gatchalian personally appeared in the office of the registration was dismissed.
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes, in his capacity as co-
On March 13, 1989, petitioner filed his motion to for registration. Such being the case, the land
reconsider the February 28, 1989 dismissal of the registration court was ordered to act in accordance with
application for registration to which private respondent Section 37 of Act No. 496[22] either by dismissing the
filed an opposition dated March 20, 1989. application if none of the litigants succeeded in showing
The motion for reconsideration was denied in an order a proper title or by entering a decree awarding the land
dated March 4, 1989. applied for to the person entitled thereto.

On May 2, 1989 petitioner filed a second motion to MARIANO V. CA | GOSIENGFIAO, 222 SCRA 736-
reconsider the dismissal of his petition. The second
motion to reconsider the dismissal of the application for Redemption by a Co-owner
registration was denied in an order dated July 5, 1989.
Redemption of the whole property by a co-owner within
ISSUE: the redemption period does not terminate the co-
ownership and does not vest in him sole ownership.
Whether or not the petitioner was given (the) chance and
the opportunity to be heard or FACTS:
allowed to fully introduce his evidence in the Francisco Gosiengfaio is the registered owner of a
(proceeding) for Land Registration and (to) rest (his) parcel of land in Tuguegarao. In his lifetime, he
case. mortgaged the land to Rural Bank of Tuguegarao to
secure payment of a loan. Francisco died in without
HELD: paying the debt. His intestate heirs were: his wife
Antonia and children Amparo, Carlos, Severo, Grace,
NO. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be Emma, Ester, Francisco, Jr., Norma, Lina, and Jacinto.
heard. It is the denial of this opportunity that is repugnant
to due process. In this case, petitioner was afforded an The bank foreclosed on the mortgage but before the
opportunity to present witnesses, and he did present redemption period expired, Antonia, Emma, Lina,
three. However, petitioner did not invoke his right to take Norma, Lina, Carlos and Severo executed a deed of
the witness stand even when the trial court ordered the assignment of the right of redemption in favor of
submission of the parties memoranda which signified the Amparo. Amparo later on sold the land to Spouses
termination of the proceedings. Because he acquiesced Mariano.
to the termination of the case, he forfeited his right to
take the witness stand. Grace Gosengfiao, and the other heirs excuded in the
deed of assignment filed a complaint for recovery and
Likewise, we are not persuaded by his allegation that his legal redemption with damages against spouses
own counsel hardly participated in the proceedings. The Mariano.
records show that said counsel did cross-examine
Engineer Silverio Perez by propounding clarificatory RTC decided in favor of spouses Mariano. CA for Grace
questions to the latter. In any event, the client is Gosiengfia, et. al.
generally bound by the acts of his counsel. Petitioner
has not shown at all that his previous counsel had acted ISSUE:
in such grossly negligent manner as to deprive him of Whether or not a co-owner who redeems the whole
effective representation, or of due process. property with her own personal funds becomes the sole
owner of said property and terminates the existing state
In support of his contention, petitioner cites Tirona vs. of co-ownership?
Naawa which held:
HELD:
We hold the view, however that respondent Judge erred No. Admittedly, as the property in question was
when he ordered the dismissal of the registration case mortgaged by the decedent, a co-ownership existed
over the objection of the oppositors; and when he among the heirs during the period given by law to
refused to reconsider the order of dismissal and redeem the foreclosed property. Redemption of the
reinstate the case he had neglected to perform an act whole property by a co-owner does not vest in him sole
which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, ownership over said property but will inure to the benefit
and had thereby deprived the oppositors of a right to of all co-owners. In other words, it will not end to the
which they are entitled. existing state of co-ownership. Redemption is not a
mode of terminating a co-ownership.
Such ruling finds no application to the present case, Respondents have not lost their right to redeem, for in
because neither Respondent Mariano Raymundo (the the absence of a written notification of the sale by the
applicant in the land registration case) nor Petitioner vendors, the 30-day period has not even begun to run.
Constantino Tirona (the oppositor in the cited case) was
a holder of any certificate of title over the land intended