1. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS; ADVERSE POSSESSION OF LAND UNDER COLOR OF CONTRACT WITH "PACTO DE RETRO." — The purchaser of land under a contract of sale with pacto de retro, prior to the date of consolidation of the property in himself, usurped land adjacent to that covered by the contract and held the same for ten years under conditions that would have constituted adverse possession against, anybody except his vendor under the aforesaid contract of sale. Held: That such possession must be considered adverse also to said vendor, and that as a consequence the usurper had acquired an indefeasible title.

2. CONTRACTS; SALE WITH "PACTO DE RETRO;" ILLEGAL STIPULATION AS TO TIME OF REPURCHASE. — In a contract of sale with pacto de retro it was stipulated that the repurchase could not be effected by the seller until ten years from the date of the contract should have passed. Held: That this stipulation was in contravention of article 1508 of the Civil Code and therefore illicit, with the consequence that the right of repurchase could in this case have been exercised by the seller at any time within ten years. The positive rule of law must here control over the intention of the parties.

3. ID.; ID.; STIPULATION FOR REPURCHASE ASSUMES OWNERSHIP IN PURCHASER. — A stipulation for repurchase by the seller in a contract does not create in the seller any right inconsistent with the ownership in the purchaser. Such a stipulation creates a - mere option, and the exercise of the right to repurchase rests upon contingency. It creates no real right in the property, and so far from being inconsistent with the idea of full ownership in the purchaser it rests upon the assumption of ownership in him.

The appealed judgment in this case was affirmed by the first division of this court on October 31,1919, in a brief opinion 1 in which the conclusions of the trial court were approved in general terms without entering into details. The appellants entered a motion for a rehearing, and the appellees, opposing said motion, replied in a memorandum dated November 21, 1919. Since that date the matter has been before us for consideration; and the fact that the Justice who acted as proponent of our opinion is now in the United States on leave makes it necessary for the author of this opinion to become the organ of the court for the expression of its resolution on the motion to rehear.

The case in its essentials is simple enough; and in what is now to be said we present only the decisive features of the case, ignoring certain aspects of the appellants’ discussion with which we either cannot agree or which we consider to be undecisive.

It appears then that the petitioners — who are Teodorico de los Santos and the heirs of his deceased wife are endeavoring in this proceeding to procure the registration of a parcel of land in the barrio of Santa Helena, municipality of Hagonoy, in the Province of Bulacan, containing an area of 529,154 square meters, and bounded, according to the description contained in the petition, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Bounded on the northeast by the Manilad River; on the southeast by the properties of Ambrosio Marasigan, Pedro Sumera Cruz, Pachita Creek, and the properties of the heirs of Pedro Crisostomo that are claimed by Pedro Santos and Prudencio Tanjutco; on the southwest by the properties of the heirs of Pedro Crisostomo, that are claimed by Julio Ramos, and on the northwest by the Rivers Binambang, Maigsingilog, and Manilad."cralaw virtua1aw library

From the surveyor’s plan, Exhibit A, accompanying the petition, it will be seen that the entire northern and northwestern boundaries of the land claimed by the petitioners consist of a well-defined watercourse to wit: The Binambang River, the Maicsing Ilog River, and the Manilad (or Manilao) River, which may be said to represent merely three stages of a single continuous stream. At the southern and southeastern border, the boundary in part consists of Estero Pachita. The Estero Kay Suca (Sapang Kay Pare), mentioned in the document Exhibit B, is a little further to the west and does not come into contact with the boundary of the parcel in question. At other points the boundaries are devoid of natural landmarks, being determined merely by contact with the land of various owners, the exact position of whose properties is undetermined by any of the documents used as evidence in the cause. Upon this point the official plan is of no value except to show where the petitioners claim the boundaries are located.

The opponents to the registration are the heirs of Pedro Grisostomo and Fabian Tiongson; and the controversy simply is whether the title to the parcel of land, as described in the petition and plotted in the official plan, is shown to be in the petitioners. The opponents assert that the parcel of land in question forms an integral part of a much larger tract of land which is owned in common by the heirs and successors of Pedro Crisostomo and Fabian Tiongson, lying in the municipality of Hagonoy, in the Province of Bulacan; and in support of this claim they have introduced in evidence Exhibit 2, which is a certified copy of a composition title, dating from far back in Spanish times, in favor of the heirs of Fabian Tiongson, covering an area of more than 450 hectares of land.

We see no reason to doubt that the land in question was in fact included in the composition title above-mentioned, and that, as a consequence, it was formerly the property of the heirs of Fabian Tiongson. This fact is interesting rather as a matter of history than otherwise, and we do not mean herein to adjudicate upon this point; for, as will be presently seen, the petitioners derive their title from Jose Tiongson, a descendant of Fabian Tiongson, and it matters not to the petitioners whether Jose Tiongson acquired the property in question by descent from Fabian Tiongson or from some other source.

In order to show title in themselves, the petitioners rely upon two species of proof, namely, Exhibit B, which is a contract of sale with pacto de retro, executed in 1904, and oral evidence tending to show possession by them of the property in question under said contract since that date.

The document Exhibit B of the petitioners is of capital importance in the case. It is a private document bearing the signatures o