Facts:

The case involves Severina Rosales and Pureza Congzon as plaintiffs and appellants against Leocadio S. Tanseco and others as defendants and appellees. The events leading to this case began in Catbalogan, Samar, where Eustaquio Congzon, the husband of Severina and father of Pureza, owned a piece of land with improvements. On August 15, 1927, Leocadio S. Tanseco prepared a fictitious mortgage on the property in favor of Tan Tay San, which Eustaquio was made to sign without any consideration. This document was later canceled and replaced in May 1930 by another mortgage for P26,000 in favor of Tan Sun, which Eustaquio also signed under fraudulent circumstances and without consideration. On March 30, 1932, Tan Sun transferred all his rights to Tan Tay San, who subsequently assigned his interests to Tanseco in April 1936.

The plaintiffs filed their complaint in May 1947, which was divided into three causes of action. The second cause of action stated that the buildings on the pr...

Facts:

Background of the Case:

• Plaintiffs Severina Rosales and Pureza Congzon are the widow and daughter, respectively, of Eustaquio Congzon, who owned a piece of land with improvements in Catbalogan, Samar.

First Cause of Action:

• On August 15, 1927, defendant Leocadio S. Tanseco prepared a fictitious mortgage of the land in favor of Tan Tay San, which Eustaquio Congzon signed without consideration.
• This document was later canceled and replaced by another "mortgage" in May 1930 for P26,000 in favor of defendant Tan Sun, which Eustaquio Congzon again signed through fraud and without consideration.
• On March 30, 1932, Tan Sun transferred his rights to Tan Tay San, who then assigned his interests to Leocadio Tanseco in April 1936.

Second Cause of Action:

• The buildings on the lot were completely burned in June 1942.
• The mortgagees had always occupied the buildings, while Eustaquio Congzon never enjoyed possession or the fruits of the land.
• Plaintiffs paid taxes on the land amounting to P39,480.75.

Third Cause of Action:

• After the destruction of the buildings in June 1942, plaintiffs were in actual and peaceful possession of the lot until June 1, 1946.
• On June 1, 1946, defendant Leocadio Tanseco, through force, intimidation, and strategy, occupied the property and constructed a house without plaintiffs' consent, causing them damage and prejudice.

Relief Sought:

• Plaintiffs prayed for the annulment of the "mortgage" documents and assignments, declaration of ownership of the lot, and for Leocadio Tanseco to vacate the property and pay damages and costs.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Prescription of Action: Actions to annul contracts based on fraud or lack of consideration must be filed within ten years from the execution of the contract. Since the latest document was executed in 1936 and the complaint was filed in 1947, the action was barred by prescription.
2. Contract of Antichresis: A contract of antichresis obligates the creditor to pay taxes on the property unless otherwise stipulated. Since the contract between Eustaquio Congzon and Tan Sun did not specify otherwise, the creditor was responsible for paying the taxes. The plaintiffs' payment of taxes effectively discharged their debt, entitling them to the return of the property.
3. Right to Possession: Under the Civil Code, every possessor is entitled to be respected in their possession. If a possessor is disturbed, they are entitled to protection or restoration of possession through legal means. The plaintiffs' forcible ejection by the creditor raised a valid claim for restoration of possession.