Facts:

The case involves plaintiffs Jose Amar, Esperanza Amar, Ildefonso Amar, Toribio Amar, Bernardo Amar, Dolores Amar, and Antonio Amar, who filed a complaint against defendant Timoteo Pagharion. The events leading to the case began with the inheritance of a parcel of land from their deceased mother, Carmen Nacionales. On April 16, 1926, the plaintiffs sold the land to Anastacia Y. de Espanola through a pacto de retro sale, which allowed them the right to repurchase the property. Subsequently, on October 27, 1927, the plaintiffs repurchased the land from Anastacia Y. de Espanola, with the sum of P1,187.85 being advanced by Timoteo Pagharion. Following this transaction, the possession of the land was transferred to Pagharion. The plaintiffs claimed that they had the right to repurchase the land, but Pagharion refused to return it. The land was declared for taxation under the name of Ildefonso Amar, and Pagharion had been paying taxes on the property from...

Facts:

Inheritance and Original Ownership

• The land in dispute was originally inherited by the plaintiffs—Jose Amar, Esperanza Amar, Toribio Amar, Bernardo Amar, Dolores Amar, Antonio Amar, and Ildefonso Amar (with their sister Adoracion Amar)—from their late mother, Carmen Nacionales.
• The parcel of land is precisely described in the pleadings and further evidenced by exhibits in both the plaintiffs’ and defendant’s submissions.

Transaction Involving a Pacto de Retro Sale

• On April 16, 1926, the heirs executed a private document under a pacto de retro sale, transferring the land to Anastacia Y. de Espanola.
• This instrument, evidenced by Exhibit “A” for the plaintiffs and marked as Exhibit “1” for the defendant, was executed by five of the eight heirs.

Repurchase of the Land

• On October 27, 1927, four of the heirs—Udefonso Amar, Toribio Amar, Bernardo Amar, and Adoracion Amar—repurchased the parcel from Anastacia Y. de Espanola.
• The purchase price of P1,187.85 was advanced by the defendant, Timoteo Pagharion, making him the financer of the repurchase.
• The repurchase transaction was documented by a private deed of sale with a reservation of the right to repurchase, executed by Adoracion Amar and her husband, Bartolome Alabado, and evidenced by Exhibit “B” (and its corresponding translations).

Transfer of Possession and Additional Facts

• After the repurchase, possession of the land was turned over by Adoracion Amar and Bartolome Alabado to defendant Timoteo Pagharion.
• The land was declared for taxation purposes in the name of plaintiff Udefonso Amar, as shown by Exhibit “C”.
• Taxes on the land were paid by the defendant from 1927 until 1951, with the exception of those for the years 1945 to 1949, which were paid by Adoracion Amar on her own accord.
• In 1945, Adoracion Amar attempted to repurchase the land from the defendant, but the defendant refused to complete the sale, and he continued to hold possession thereafter.

Procedural History and Relief Sought

• The plaintiffs initiated an action to recover title and possession of the parcel, seek damages and costs, compel the defendant to accept the repurchase money, and return the loan document evidencing the said sum.
• The defendant pleaded prescription due to his long-standing possession since October 27, 1927, amounting to 22 years, 1 month, and 11 days by the time the complaint was filed on December 7, 1949.
• The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint with costs.
• After the denial of both a motion for reconsideration and for a new trial, the plaintiffs appealed the decision.

Issue:

Nature and Effect of the Transfer Instrument

• Whether the delivery of the instrument of sale and the transfer of possession constituted merely an assignment of the repurchase right (i.e., the right of Anastacia Y. de Espanola) or effectuated a new contract of sale with a reservation of the right to repurchase.

Validity and Timeliness of the Repurchase Right

• Whether the repurchase right, having no stipulated term in the original pact, was still enforceable given that the statutory period of four years for the vendors to repurchase had expired.
• The implications of the absence of a term for repurchase on the validity of the plaintiffs’ claim.

Prescription and Possession

• Whether the defendant’s uninterrupted possession of the property for over 22 years, along with his payment of taxes, legally bars the plaintiffs’ claim and vests him with title by prescription.
• How the extant period of possession under the relevant provisions (Sections 40 and 41 of Act No. 190) affects the recovery action brought by the plaintiffs.

Contractual and Equitable Considerations

• Whether the actions and admissions by all parties—especially the payment of consideration and the subsequent delivery of possession—convert the repurchase agreement into an executed contract meriting full ownership by the defendant.
• The extent to which equity supports the defendant’s retention of possession despite the existence of a repurchase agreement.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)