Facts:

The case involves Ildefonso Tambunting, who filed a complaint against Virginia de Vera and several other defendants, including the heirs of Antonino de Guzman and Gregoria de la Cruz. The complaint was lodged on September 6, 1912, in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking the recovery of a parcel of land located on Calle Benavides, Nos. 723 and 725, with an area of 599 square meters and 61 square centimeters. Tambunting claimed ownership of the property, asserting that he acquired it through a sale with a right of repurchase from Andres de Guzman, who had been his tenant. The defendants, on the other hand, contended that the property belonged to the estate of their deceased ancestors and denied any lease agreement with Tambunting. The lower court, presided over by Judge A. S. Crossfield, ruled in favor of Tambunting on April 28, 1913, ordering the defendants to restore possession of the property to him and to pay back rent amounting to P4,325. The defendants appealed ...

Facts:

1. Property in Dispute: The case involves a parcel of land with a house situated on Calle Benavides, Manila, with an area of 599 square meters and 61 square centimeters. The property was leased by Andres de Guzman to Ildefonso Tambunting, the plaintiff, under a contract of lease.
2. Ownership Claim: Ildefonso Tambunting, acting on his own behalf and as the judicial administrator of the estate of his deceased wife Juliana Uy Chico, claimed ownership of the property. He alleged that Andres de Guzman and the defendants had leased the property from him since 1895 but stopped paying rent after 1899.
3. Defendants' Claim: The defendants, heirs of Antonino de Guzman and Gregoria de la Cruz, claimed that the property belonged to their ancestors and that they were co-owners. They argued that Andres de Guzman had encumbered the property without their consent and that they had the right to redeem it by paying the amount owed to Tambunting.
4. Legal Proceedings: Tambunting filed a complaint in 1912 seeking to recover possession of the property and unpaid rentals. The defendants denied the allegations and asserted their ownership. The trial court ruled in favor of Tambunting, ordering the defendants to restore possession of the property and pay the unpaid rentals.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Ownership by Tambunting: The Court found that Tambunting acquired absolute ownership of the property after Andres de Guzman failed to repurchase it within the stipulated period. The possessory information proceedings instituted by Guzman confirmed his ownership, and the property was legally transferred to Tambunting.
2. Failure to Prove Co-Ownership: The defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the property belonged to their ancestors or that they were co-owners. Their claim of redemption was also unsupported by evidence.
3. Prescription: The Court noted that Tambunting's claim of ownership was supported by prescription, as more than ten years had passed since the purchase of the property. However, the Court did not need to rely on this ground due to the lack of evidence presented by the defendants.
4. Procedural Issue: The Court emphasized that the failure to transcribe the stenographic notes of the trial into Spanish or English rendered the evidence unavailable for review. As a result, the appellate court had to accept the findings of the lower court.