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

Action for Recovery of Title and Possession

The case involves an action initiated by the plaintiffs to recover title to and possession of a parcel of land, along with damages and costs. The plaintiffs also sought to compel the defendant to accept a payment of P1,187.85 and return a loan document. The defendant, Timoteo Pagharion, raised the defense of prescription, asserting that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by the passage of time.

• Plaintiffs sought recovery of land title and possession.
• Additional claims included damages and costs.
• Defendant raised the defense of prescription.

Stipulation of Facts

The parties entered into a stipulation of facts, which outlined the undisputed elements of the case. The land in question was inherited by the plaintiffs from their deceased mother. It was sold under a pacto de retro sale to Anastacia Y. de Espaola in 1926, and subsequently repurchased by some of the plaintiffs in 1927 with funds advanced by the defendant. The stipulation also noted that the defendant had been in possession of the land since the repurchase.

• Land was inherited from the plaintiffs' mother.
• Sold to Anastacia Y. de Espaola in 1926.
• Repurchased in 1927 with funds from the defendant.
• Defendant has been in possession since the repurchase.

Legal Implications of the Sale and Repurchase

The sale to Anastacia Y. de Espaola included a right of repurchase, but no specific term was stipulated for this right. The repurchase occurred in 1927, and the possession was transferred to the defendant. The court had to consider whether this transfer constituted an assignment of rights or a new sale. Regardless, the statutory period for repurchase had expired, as the plaintiffs did not act within the legally prescribed timeframe.

• No specific term for repurchase was stipulated.
• The repurchase occurred in 1927, with possession transferred to the defendant.
• The court considered the nature of the transfer of possession.
• The statutory period for repurchase had expired.

Duration of Possession and Prescription

The defendant's possession of the land lasted from October 27, 1927, until December 7, 1949, totaling over 22 years. This duration was significant enough to bar the plaintiffs' action and to vest title in the defendant through prescription. The plaintiffs, who did not execute the original sale, did not contest the authority of their co-heirs to act on their behalf. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claim to repurchase was no longer valid due to the elapsed time.

• Defendant possessed the land for over 22 years.
• This duration barred the plaintiffs' action and vested title in the defendant.
• Non-signing plaintiffs did not contest the auth...continue reading

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

Case Overview

• This case pertains to an action initiated by the plaintiffs to recover title to and possession of a parcel of land.
• Plaintiffs also sought damages and costs, and requested the defendant to accept a payment of P1,187.85 and return a loan document.
• The defendant, Timoteo Pagharion, invoked the defense of prescription, asserting that the plaintiffs' claims had lapsed due to the passage of time.

Parties Involved

• Plaintiffs and Appellants: Jose Amar, Esperanza Amar, Ildefonso Amar, Toribio Amar, Bernardo Amar, Dolores Amar, and Antonio Amar.
• Defendant and Appellee: Timoteo Pagharion.

Stipulation of Facts

• The parties entered into a stipulation of undisputed facts, which outlined the following:
  • The land in question was inherited by the plaintiffs from their deceased mother, Carmen Nacionales.
  • On April 16, 1926, the land was sold to Anastacia Y. de Espanola through a pacto de retro sale executed by five of the plaintiffs.
  • On October 27, 1927, the plaintiffs repurchased the parcel of land from Anastacia Y. de Espanola, using funds advan...continue reading