FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-18666. February 17, 1923. ]
FLORENCIA VELAZQUEZ ET AL., Plaintiff-Appellants, v. JUSTO TEODORO ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.
Eusebio F. Ramos for Appellants.
Araneta & Zaragoza for Appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. CONTRACTS; INTERPRETATION OF; INTENTION PREVAILS. — Although by its terms, the contract may seem to be one of sale with the right to repurchase, yet if it is evident that the intention of the parties was to enter a contract of mortgage, said intention shall prevail. This intention may be inferred from simultaneous or subsequent acts of the parties, as well as from the stipulations themselves of the contract. Thus the fact of the owner of the realty transferred having bound himself to return the principal and interest, securing said obligation by a bond, and the act of the same owner having afterwards assigned the realty to the surety, prove that the transaction was not a sale.
2. PRESCRIPTION; PROVISO IN FAVOR OF MINORS; WHEN BENEFICIAL TO PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE OF AGE. — Where the interests of the plaintiffs are joint and inseparable and the rights of some of them are saved by the law by reason of their incapacity, the benefit of such a saving provision extends to the others even if the latter are not laboring under any incapacity.
3. ID.; ID.; COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY. — In an action to recover title to a property the plaintiffs are coowners of the property they seek to recover. The defendants allege prescription of action. All of the plaintiffs, but one who is of age, are protected by the saving provision of section 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure in favor of minors. Held: That the benefit of said saving provision extends to the plaintiff who is of age, and the plaintiffs’ action has not prescribed as to any of them.
4. POSSESSION; BAD FAITH; BURDEN OF PROOF. — In an action to recover title to a property, wherein the plaintiff claims damages for the fruits not received by him, it is the duty of the plaintiff to allege and prove bad faith on the part of the defendant. Otherwise the possession must be presumed to be in good faith, in which case the defendant possessor will not be liable for the fruits received by him.
5. DEBTS OF A DECEASED; COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS AND APPRAISAL; WHEN MAY BE COLLECTED ALTHOUGH NOT PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE. — A.V. owes R.V. P2,500, the payment of which is guaranteed by L.V. as surety. The latter pays the debt, and the widow of A. V., the debtor, assigns certain realties to said surety in payment of the debtor of her deceased husband, A.V., that was paid by the said surety. Some of the realties sold were private property of the deceased debtor, and the rest, conjugal property. At the instance of the heirs of the deceased, said assignment is declared null and void as regards the private property of the deceased and his share in the conjugal property, and as a consequence of said decree of nullity, that part of said realties constituted by the private property of the deceased and his share in the conjugal property is to be returned to said heirs. The assignee of said realties, to whom the debt was due for having been subrogated in the place of the creditor, considered the debt as paid with the realties assigned and did not present any claim to the committee on claims and appraisal in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate left by the deceased debtor. Held: That justice and equity demand that in ordering the return of the realties of the heirs, they be also ordered to pay their value at the same price for which they were assigned to the creditor in payment of her credit, even if no claim was presented to the committee on claims and appraisal for the collection thereof, because the creditor having considered the debt as paid, she was not to be expected to present any claim for the payment thereof; but now that the assignment is declared for the first time to be void, equity demands that the assignee be reimbursed for what she has given in acquiring the realties of which she is deprived.
6. ID.; ID.; INTEREST. — Said heirs must pay legal interest on the amount they are bound to reimburse, computed from the date of the judgment of the lower court when said obligation to pay the aforesaid sum was announced for the first time.
2. PRESCRIPTION; PROVISO IN FAVOR OF MINORS; WHEN BENEFICIAL TO PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE OF AGE. — Where the interests of the plaintiffs are joint and inseparable and the rights of some of them are saved by the law by reason of their incapacity, the benefit of such a saving provision extends to the others even if the latter are not laboring under any incapacity.
3. ID.; ID.; COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY. — In an action to recover title to a property the plaintiffs are coowners of the property they seek to recover. The defendants allege prescription of action. All of the plaintiffs, but one who is of age, are protected by the saving provision of section 42 of the Code of Civil Procedure in favor of minors. Held: That the benefit of said saving provision extends to the plaintiff who is of age, and the plaintiffs’ action has not prescribed as to any of them.
4. POSSESSION; BAD FAITH; BURDEN OF PROOF. — In an action to recover title to a property, wherein the plaintiff claims damages for the fruits not received by him, it is the duty of the plaintiff to allege and prove bad faith on the part of the defendant. Otherwise the possession must be presumed to be in good faith, in which case the defendant possessor will not be liable for the fruits received by him.
5. DEBTS OF A DECEASED; COMMITTEE ON CLAIMS AND APPRAISAL; WHEN MAY BE COLLECTED ALTHOUGH NOT PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE. — A.V. owes R.V. P2,500, the payment of which is guaranteed by L.V. as surety. The latter pays the debt, and the widow of A. V., the debtor, assigns certain realties to said surety in payment of the debtor of her deceased husband, A.V., that was paid by the said surety. Some of the realties sold were private property of the deceased debtor, and the rest, conjugal property. At the instance of the heirs of the deceased, said assignment is declared null and void as regards the private property of the deceased and his share in the conjugal property, and as a consequence of said decree of nullity, that part of said realties constituted by the private property of the deceased and his share in the conjugal property is to be returned to said heirs. The assignee of said realties, to whom the debt was due for having been subrogated in the place of the creditor, considered the debt as paid with the realties assigned and did not present any claim to the committee on claims and appraisal in the proceedings for the settlement of the estate left by the deceased debtor. Held: That justice and equity demand that in ordering the return of the realties of the heirs, they be also ordered to pay their value at the same price for which they were assigned to the creditor in payment of her credit, even if no claim was presented to the committee on claims and appraisal for the collection thereof, because the creditor having considered the debt as paid, she was not to be expected to present any claim for the payment thereof; but now that the assignment is declared for the first time to be void, equity demands that the assignee be reimbursed for what she has given in acquiring the realties of which she is deprived.
6. ID.; ID.; INTEREST. — Said heirs must pay legal interest on the amount they are bound to reimburse, computed from the date of the judgment of the lower court when said obligation to pay the aforesaid sum was announced for the first time.
D E C I S I O N
ROMUALDEZ, J.:
In this action the plaintiffs seek to recover the title to, and possession of, certain lands, and damages. Some of said lands belonged to their father, Antonio Velazquez 1.
