Title
Amar vs. Pagharion
Case
G.R. No. L-8025
Decision Date
May 30, 1956
Heirs failed to repurchase land within statutory period; defendant's 22-year possession vested title by prescription, barring plaintiffs' claim.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-8025)

Facts:

Ownership and Inheritance

  • The land in question was inherited by the plaintiffs (Jose Amar, Esperanza Amar, Toribio Amar, Bernardo Amar, Dolores Amar, Antonio Amar, and Ildefonso Amar) and their sister Adoracion Amar from their deceased mother, Carmen Nacionales.

Initial Sale and Repurchase

  • On April 16, 1926, the land was sold under a pacto de retro (sale with right of repurchase) to Anastacia Y. de Espanola by five of the heirs (Jose Amar, Ildefonso Amar, Toribio Amar, Bernardo Amar, and Adoracion Amar). The sale was evidenced by a private document (Exhibit "A").
  • On October 27, 1927, the same heirs repurchased the land from Anastacia Y. de Espanola using funds advanced by the defendant, Timoteo Pagharion. In consideration of the sum of P1,187.85, Adoracion Amar and her husband Bartolome Alabado executed a private instrument transferring the land to Pagharion under a deed of sale with the right of repurchase (Exhibit "B").

Possession and Tax Payments

  • Adoracion Amar and her husband delivered possession of the land to Pagharion.
  • The land was declared for taxation purposes in the name of Ildefonso Amar (Exhibit "C").
  • Pagharion paid the land taxes from 1927 to 1951, except for the years 1945-1949, when Adoracion Amar paid the taxes voluntarily.

Attempt to Repurchase

  • In 1945, Adoracion Amar attempted to repurchase the land from Pagharion, but he refused.

Agricultural Output

  • The land produced 60 cavanes of rice, 10 cavanes of corn, and 5 cavanes of mongo annually, with market prices of P10, P5, and P25 per cavan, respectively.

Issue:

  1. Whether the plaintiffs have the right to repurchase the land from the defendant.
  2. Whether the defendant's possession of the land for over 22 years bars the plaintiffs' action and vests title in him by prescription.

Ruling:

The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint. The defendant's possession of the land for over 22 years barred the plaintiffs' action and vested title in him by prescription.

Ratio:

  1. Expiration of Repurchase Period: The plaintiffs' right to repurchase the land expired after four years, as provided under Article 1508 of the old Civil Code. The plaintiffs failed to exercise this right within the statutory period.
  2. Prescription: The defendant's possession of the land from October 27, 1927, to December 7, 1949 (22 years, 1 month, and 11 days) was sufficient to bar the plaintiffs' action and vest title in him by prescription under Sections 40 and 41 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure).
  3. Lack of Authorization Claim: The three plaintiffs who did not sign the original sale document did not contest the authority of the other co-heirs to act on their behalf, further weakening their claim.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.