Case Digest (G.R. No. 4461)
Facts:
Macario Samson v. Vicenta Salvilla and Pascual Sierra, G.R. No. 4461. January 16, 1909, the Supreme Court, Arellano, C.J., writing for the Court.The plaintiff-appellant, Macario Samson, sued Vicenta Salvilla and Pascual Sierra (defendants-appellees) in the Court of First Instance of Albay seeking declaration of ownership and delivery of possession of a described rice-field, recovery of P1,000 for damages, and costs. Samson alleged he was the sole owner by virtue of a pacto de retro purchase from Ramon Espinas on 11 August 1892, and that the defendants, who had worked the land as aparceros and earlier paid him one-third of the crops, in June 1906 unlawfully retained possession and claimed ownership.
The defendants answered that they were the sole owners, claiming long peaceful possession since 1895 and produced a possessory information recorded in the registry in the name of Ramon Espinas dated 24 June 1895 and a public instrument of sale executed by Guillerma Aguilar in favor of Vicenta Salvilla (wife of Pascual Sierra). The parties agreed as to the identity of the property; their contest concerned the legal effect of competing possessory inscriptions and the alleged pacto de retro transactions.
At trial Samson offered a possessory information recorded 4 September 1895 stating acquisition by pacto de retro from Ramon Espinas on 11 August 1892; he also presented notice to former owners (including Espinas) and testimony that Espinas and later the defendants produced and paid a share of crops to Samson. The defendants produced documentary evidence consisting of a written receipt and an extrajudicial declaration (Exhibit No. 4) by Juan Hernandez acknowledging receipt of P450 and declaring lands he had acquired to be sold to Samson under pacto de retro, and Sierra testified that he executed a like instrument in Samson’s favor dated May or June 1895. The defendants claimed that Hernandez and Sierra had assumed Espinas’s debt to Samson (total P700) and, by acquiring Espinas’s property from Guillerma Aguilar, became the owners; they maintained that the documentary instruments evidenced either their ownership or a pacto de retro which they could redeem.
...(Pro-only)Issues:
- Did Samson prove ownership and the right to possession of the disputed land such that the trial court’s judgment for the defendants must be reversed?
- Is Samson entitled to recovery for loss and damages in the am...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)