EN BANC
[G.R. No. 24863. August 5, 1926. ]
LEON RAZOTE ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JUAN RAZOTE (alias BANDONG), NORBERTO RAPATALO, GREGORIO RAPATALO, and EUGENIA DE FRANCIA, Defendants-Appellees.
C. Primicias for Appellants.
Antonio Bengson for Appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. REAL PROPERTY; TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION; TACKING OF POSSESSION. — For the purpose of acquiring title to land by adverse possession, the rule in this jurisdiction is that where there is privity between successive occupants, the adverse possession of the predecessor may be tacked to the adverse possession of the successor, whether the former had title to the land or not.
2. ID.; ID.; INTERRUPTION OF POSSESSION. — An action against a stranger to the possession does not interrupt the running of the statutory limitations as to the actual possessor if the latter’s possession is open and notorious, and this rule is not affected by existing blood relationship between the stranger and the actual possessor.
3. INTERRUPTION OF POSSESSION; ACTION AGAINST IMPROPER PARTY. — The fact that the actual possessor knows that an action has been brought against his predecessor for the recovery of the land after the possession has passed to said actual possessor does not in itself interrupt his possession and he is under no legal obligation to inform the plaintiff that he is the possessor; it is the duty of the plaintiff to be vigilant and to see that the action is brought against the proper party in interest.
2. ID.; ID.; INTERRUPTION OF POSSESSION. — An action against a stranger to the possession does not interrupt the running of the statutory limitations as to the actual possessor if the latter’s possession is open and notorious, and this rule is not affected by existing blood relationship between the stranger and the actual possessor.
3. INTERRUPTION OF POSSESSION; ACTION AGAINST IMPROPER PARTY. — The fact that the actual possessor knows that an action has been brought against his predecessor for the recovery of the land after the possession has passed to said actual possessor does not in itself interrupt his possession and he is under no legal obligation to inform the plaintiff that he is the possessor; it is the duty of the plaintiff to be vigilant and to see that the action is brought against the proper party in interest.
D E C I S I O N
OSTRAND, J.:
This is an action for the partition of a parcel situated in the barrio of San Jose of the municipality of Alaminos, Pangasinan, the plaintiffs alleging that they are the owners of a four-fifths interest in the land, having inherited the same from their father, Juan Razote 1.
