EN BANC
[G.R. No. 4474. January 27, 1909. ]
BERNABE ALCERA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SATURNINO NERY, Defendant-Appellant.
Leoncio Imperial, for Appellant.
Diaz & Villareal, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. REALTY; SALE; OWNERSHIP. — Under the evidence with reference to the various transfers, as set forth in the opinion: Held, That the defendant is the true owner of the property in controversy, and is unconditionally entitled to the possession thereof.
D E C I S I O N
ARELLANO, C.J. :
From the documents presented by both parties in this case it appears:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) That on March "2, 1905, Renito Nova sold to Macario Samson, for the sum of P350, two parcels of land, one of which, the first one described in the document, according to the agreed statement of facts, is the subject-matter of the complaint. It was expressly stipulated in the contract that the purchaser, and his heirs and assigns became the owners of the above-mentioned lands by virtue of this sale, they being entitled to exercise the rights pertaining, to them as owners. It was also expressly stipulated that, at any time the seller should repay the amount received, the said lands would be returned to him, provided not more than three months after each crop had elapsed. This contract was ratified before a notary on the same date.
(2) That on May 12,1906, the said Benito Nova sold to Saturnino Nery, for P900, the two parcels of land which had been sold on pacto de retro to Macario Samson, in accordance with the foregoing document, this sale being absolute, and the following declaration of the seller being set up in the deed, viz, that the said lands were sold on pacto de retro to Macario Samson, under a deed executed on March 22, 1905, and that they were redeemed by the purchaser Nery; that they are not encumbered, and he binds himself to answer to any claim that may be presented, as well as to be responsible for the eviction and warranty. This deed also was ratified before a notary public on the same date.
(3) That, at the foot of the foregoing document of sale with pacto de retro in favor of Macario Samson, there is the following note:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"I indorse this document in favor of Saturnino Nery, on account of the above mentioned lands having been redeemed. — Camalig, .May 1", 1906. — Macario Samson. — Signed in the presence of Benito Nova and another witness."cralaw virtua1aw library
(4) That on June 7, 1905, the said Benito Nova pledged the land in question to Bernabe Alcera for the sum of P300, under the following conditions: that the period fixed for the redemption should be eighteen months from that date, but, should this period elapse without the redemption being effected, the pledge was to continue for a further period of eighteen months. There is also the following clause:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"I hereby declare that the said late (field) is pledged from this date forward to my creditor, and he is the one who has the right to collect the fruits thereof until such time as I redeem it; I also declare that, at the expiration of the period fixed, I will redeem the said land, and he shall not make any objection, provided the amount is in order and the period has expired."cralaw virtua1aw library
This document, executed in the Bicol dialect, is purely a private one.
(5) On August 31, 1906, the said Benito Nova sold with pacto de retro, to Bernabe Alcera, the land here in question, for the sum of P300 and for the period of eighteen months from June 7, 1905, the date on which he received the money, according to a document in Bicol attached to the deed, and he, on that date, still claimed that the land was his exclusive property, and both of the parties agreed in the deed that, upon the payment of the sum of P300, Bernabe Alcera was to be the absolute owner of the property described until the date fixed for the redemption in the said deed, and that he might exercise his right to transfer the same to a third party.
If we note the context of the deeds, the land was apparently delivered to Alcera on June 7, 1905, but on the other hand it appears that, inasmuch as it was redeemed on May 12, 1906, it ought to have been in Samson’s possession from the month of March; and, since it is claimed from Nery in this suit, it must at present be in the possession of the latter. Bernabe Alcera claimed it on March 18, 1907, pretending to be the owner thereof.
The parties set out the facts in the contention in an agreement that was produced at the trial. Therein appears an article (the 8th), of the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That the fruits collected by the defendant from the land in question amount to the sum of P30."cralaw virtua1aw library
By virtue of the agreement, there were introduced and admitted the following documents:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Evidence of the plaintiff: Exhibit A, with a translation into Spanish, which is a deed of the land in controversy executed by Benito Nova in favor of the plaintiff; Exhibit 1, which is another deed of the same land executed by the said Benito Nova in favor of the plaintiff on the 31st day of August, 1906."cralaw virtua1aw library
"Evidence of the de
(1) That on March "2, 1905, Renito Nova sold to Macario Samson, for the sum of P350, two parcels of land, one of which, the first one described in the document, according to the agreed statement of facts, is the subject-matter of the complaint. It was expressly stipulated in the contract that the purchaser, and his heirs and assigns became the owners of the above-mentioned lands by virtue of this sale, they being entitled to exercise the rights pertaining, to them as owners. It was also expressly stipulated that, at any time the seller should repay the amount received, the said lands would be returned to him, provided not more than three months after each crop had elapsed. This contract was ratified before a notary on the same date.
(2) That on May 12,1906, the said Benito Nova sold to Saturnino Nery, for P900, the two parcels of land which had been sold on pacto de retro to Macario Samson, in accordance with the foregoing document, this sale being absolute, and the following declaration of the seller being set up in the deed, viz, that the said lands were sold on pacto de retro to Macario Samson, under a deed executed on March 22, 1905, and that they were redeemed by the purchaser Nery; that they are not encumbered, and he binds himself to answer to any claim that may be presented, as well as to be responsible for the eviction and warranty. This deed also was ratified before a notary public on the same date.
(3) That, at the foot of the foregoing document of sale with pacto de retro in favor of Macario Samson, there is the following note:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"I indorse this document in favor of Saturnino Nery, on account of the above mentioned lands having been redeemed. — Camalig, .May 1", 1906. — Macario Samson. — Signed in the presence of Benito Nova and another witness."cralaw virtua1aw library
(4) That on June 7, 1905, the said Benito Nova pledged the land in question to Bernabe Alcera for the sum of P300, under the following conditions: that the period fixed for the redemption should be eighteen months from that date, but, should this period elapse without the redemption being effected, the pledge was to continue for a further period of eighteen months. There is also the following clause:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"I hereby declare that the said late (field) is pledged from this date forward to my creditor, and he is the one who has the right to collect the fruits thereof until such time as I redeem it; I also declare that, at the expiration of the period fixed, I will redeem the said land, and he shall not make any objection, provided the amount is in order and the period has expired."cralaw virtua1aw library
This document, executed in the Bicol dialect, is purely a private one.
(5) On August 31, 1906, the said Benito Nova sold with pacto de retro, to Bernabe Alcera, the land here in question, for the sum of P300 and for the period of eighteen months from June 7, 1905, the date on which he received the money, according to a document in Bicol attached to the deed, and he, on that date, still claimed that the land was his exclusive property, and both of the parties agreed in the deed that, upon the payment of the sum of P300, Bernabe Alcera was to be the absolute owner of the property described until the date fixed for the redemption in the said deed, and that he might exercise his right to transfer the same to a third party.
If we note the context of the deeds, the land was apparently delivered to Alcera on June 7, 1905, but on the other hand it appears that, inasmuch as it was redeemed on May 12, 1906, it ought to have been in Samson’s possession from the month of March; and, since it is claimed from Nery in this suit, it must at present be in the possession of the latter. Bernabe Alcera claimed it on March 18, 1907, pretending to be the owner thereof.
The parties set out the facts in the contention in an agreement that was produced at the trial. Therein appears an article (the 8th), of the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"That the fruits collected by the defendant from the land in question amount to the sum of P30."cralaw virtua1aw library
By virtue of the agreement, there were introduced and admitted the following documents:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Evidence of the plaintiff: Exhibit A, with a translation into Spanish, which is a deed of the land in controversy executed by Benito Nova in favor of the plaintiff; Exhibit 1, which is another deed of the same land executed by the said Benito Nova in favor of the plaintiff on the 31st day of August, 1906."cralaw virtua1aw library
"Evidence of the de
