G.R. No. 984. June 23, 1905

This case relates to the possession of the land described in the complaint, and does not involve the question of title.

There was no motion for a new trial in the court below, and we can
not, therefore, review the evidence. The only question to be decided is
whether the facts stated in the decision and those admitted by the
pleadings sustain the judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The judge finds as facts that on the 1st day of September, 1887,
Narciso Bermejo sold and conveyed the land in question by a public
document to the plaintiff and to her husband, Palmo Davidas, since
deceased. The grantees then took possession of the land, and during the
time of such possession made a verbal agreement with the defendant and
his wife, Alejandra Bermejo, since deceased, by the terms of which the
plaintiff and her husband transferred to the defendant and his wife the
land in question and certain carabaos with the understanding that they
should use them for the purpose of supporting themselves from the
products thereof, and should return the land and carabaos to the
plaintiff and her husband whenever the latter should need them. The
court finds that the defendant and his wife entered into possession of
the property under this arrangement.

In an action such as this, which relates, as has been said before,
to the possession of the property, these facts are sufficient to
support a judgment for the plaintiff, and no other facts are stated in
the decision which are in conflict with them.

The defendant, in the court below, relied upon a private document
executed by Victoriano Bermejo and his brothers to the defendant’s wife
two years after the execution of the deed by Narciso Bermejo to the
plaintiff and her husband. By this document the grantors undertook to
convey the land in question to the wife of defendant, saying in it that
they had inherited the property from their mother, Clotilde Base. The
court, however, finds that neither Victoriano Bermejo, nor his
brothers, nor Clotilde Base ever were in possession of the property,
and that there was no evidence in the case to show that any of them
ever had any interest therein.

The defendant in the court below also relied upon a public document
executed in 1898, after the death of his wife, by her mother, Rafaela
Posadas, by which the grantor undertook to convey to the defendant a
certain tract of land. In this deed the grantor says that her title to
the property is derived from her daughter, the wife of the defendant.
But inasmuch as the court finds that the only right which the
defendant’s wife had in the property, so far as the evidence in this
case shows, was the right which she acquired by virtue of the contract
made between herself and her husband and the plaintiff and her husband,
it is apparent that this deed could, under the findings of the court,
convey no interest whatever to the defendant. The right which the wife
of the defendant acquired by virtue of the arrangement aforesaid was a
mere right to possess the property until the plaintiff desired to use
it, and that right terminated of necessity at least when the plaintiff
commenced this suit. Rafaela appeared as a witness at the trial
according to the findings of the court, and testified that she never
executed this document. The court made no definite findings as to
whether the document was genuine or not, and it is apparent, in view of
the opinion of the court upon other branches of the case, that such
finding was not at all necessary.

The appellant also claims that the document executed by Narciso
Bermejo to the plaintiff and her husband should not have been received
in evidence against him to his prejudice because he was a third person
within the meaning of various articles of the Mortgage Law. Without
deciding whether these articles of the Mortgage Law thus cited have any
application to the case or not, it is sufficient to say that the court
stated as a fact in its decision that this document had been duly
recorded. The proofs in the case upon which this finding was based are
not before us, and if they were, we would, as has been said before,
have no right to review them. We are bound to assume, therefore, that
this document was properly recorded.

The appellant finally claims that the land described in the document
executed to him in 1898 by Rafaela Posadas is not the same land as that
described in the document executed by Narciso Bermejo to the plaintiff
and her husband in 1887. The judgment does not describe any land, but
speaks of the “land in question” and says that the documents presented
by the defendant relate to the same land. The complaint does not
describe any land, but it has attached to it as a part thereof the
aforesaid public document executed by Narciso Bermejo in 1887. In his
answer the defendant says that he “entered into possession of the land
the object of the suit” by virtue of the document executed by Rafaela
Posadas. This document was not attached to the answer as a part
thereof. It was a part of the proof presented by the defendant during
the trial. In our opinion the difference in the description of the two
tracts of land, if there is such a difference, makes worse the
situation of the defendant, since he has not proven the allegation in
his answer to the effect that this deed from Rafaela to himself
conveyed the land which was the object of the litigation.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this
instance against the appellant. After the expiration of twenty days
judgment will be entered in accordance herewith, and the cause remanded
to the lower court for execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.
Mapa, J., did not sit in this case.