G.R. No. L-5973. March 20, 1954

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals holding (1) that the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 240 of
the Court of, First Instance of Ilocos Norte is binding on the
appellee; (2) that appellee should return the property in litigation to
appellants; and (3) that appellee should pay to appellants the sum of
P50, value of the palay harvested in December, 1949, and to deliver all
subsequent harvests from the land, or pay their equivalent value, after
deducting the necessary expenses, and to pay the costs.

This appeal stems from an action filed in the Court of First
Instance of Ilocos Norte by spouses Claudio Acoba and Agapita Agustin
against Marcelo Vea wherein they seek to restrain the defendant from
encroaching on the possession by them of the parcel of land described
in the complaint and, incidentally, to be declared the owners of said
parcel of land and to be awarded certain damages which they claim to
have incurred as a result of the illegal action of the defendant.

Defendant in his answer set up as special defense that he is the
true owner of the land in litigation having acquired it from Esteban
Ramoran on August 28, 1936 and that since that year to the present he
has always been in continuous possession thereof peacefully, openly,
and in concept of owner except when the sheriff tried to dispossess him
upon the request of the plaintiffs in 1948 which act did not
materialize due to his vigorous and timely objection.

After the reception of the evidence, the lower court found for
defendant and dismissed the complaint. It held that the preponderance
of evidence militates in favor of the defendant. This is the finding
which was reversed by the Court of Appeals in the manner stated in the
early part of this decision.

The facts as found by the Court of Appeals are: On December 5, 1943,
Esteban Ramoran, Felipa Ramos, Petra Colcol and Tomasa Colcol, executed
a deed of partition of a parcel of land containing an area of 23,520
square meters whereby the 1/3 eastern portion was given to Felipa
llamos, the 1/3 middle portion to Esteban Ramoran, and the 1/3 western
portion to the Colcols, which deed of partition was duly recorded in
the Office of the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Norte.

On July 29, 1944, Agapita Agustin, as guardian ad litem of
Felipa Ramos, filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of
Ilocos Norte, known as Civil Case No. 240, against Esteban Ramoran, to
recover the eastern 1/3 portion of land which was given in the
partition to Felipa Ramos. On July 29, 1948, a decision was handed down
in that case holding the spouses Claudio Acoba and Agapita Agustin to
be the owners of the land and ordering Ramoran to deliver the land to
said spouses and to pay the sum of P50 as annual rent from the filing
of the complaint and to pay the costs.

On December 9, 1948, a writ of execution was issued in said case by
virtue of which the land was delivered by the sheriff to the spouses
notwithstanding the third party claim presented by Marcelo Vea claiming
to have acquired it from Esteban Ramoran on August 28, 1936. And on
August 10, 1949, the spouses Acoba brought the present action (Civil
Case No. 1089) in the same court against Marcelo Vea for the recovery
of the same parcel of land on the ground that said Marcelo Vea entered
upon the land over the opposition of said spouses alleging to be the
owner thereof.

On the other hand, Marcelo Vea tried to establish that he bought the
land on August 28, 1936 from Esteban Ramoran, as shown by Exhibit 2;
that Esteban Ramoran acquired it from Felipa Ramos through absolute
sale on November 11, 1935, as shown by Exhibit 3; that notwithstanding
the sale made in his favor, Esteban Ramoran continued in possession of
the land as tenant of Marcelo Vea; that it was Ramoran who paid the
annual taxes on the land since he acquired it until 1948 with the money
furnished by him (Marcelo Vea); that he had no knowledge of the deed of
partition executed in December, 1943 by the Colcols, Esteban Ramoran
and Felipa Ramos; neither was he aware of the filing of Civil Case No.
240 against Esteban Ramoran, nor of the alleged delivery of the land by
the sheriff to the spouses Acoba as in fact he had continued in
possession of said land from 1936 through his tenant Esteban Ramoran
until after the end of the harvest season of 1948 when Ramoran could no
longer work because of old age; that in 1949 he himself plowed the land
and harvested the palay planted thereon; that for having done so
Agapita Agustin filed a criminal complaint against him which was
dismissed; and that the spouses Acoba tried to enter the land but he
did not allow them to do so.

The core of this case lies in the determination of the ownership of
the parcel of land described in the complaint. The spouses Acoba claim
to be the owner for having inherited it from Felipa Ramos whose title
they seem to predicate on the deed of partition executed on December 5,
1943 by Esteban Ramoran, Felipa Ramos and the sisters Petra Colcol and
Tomasa Colcol, while Marcelo Vea claims title thereto by virtue of the
deed of sale executed in his favor by Esteban Ramoran on August 28,1936
(Exhibit 2). There is therefore here a conflict of title the priority
of which can only be determined by looking into its source and the
circumstance under which it had been acquired. It should be noted that
the source of the title of the conflicting parties is one and the same
person: Felipa Ramos. Esteban Ramoran, predecessor-in-interest of
Marcelo Vea, claims to have acquired it from Felipa Ramos, while the
spouses Acoba claim to have inherited it from the same person. From
this it must follow that if upon the death of Felipa Ramos she was not
the owner of the land, said spouses did not inherit anything from her.
There was nothing that she could transfer upon her death. On the other
hand, if Esteban Ramoran was not the owner of the land when he executed
the deed of sale Exhibit 2 in favor of Marcelo Vea, then the latter did
not acquire anything from Ramoran. This would bring us to the necessity
of determining the title on which Esteban Ramoran relied in executing
said deed of sale. This title is Exhibit 3.

It appears from this exhibit that Felipa Ramos, because of her dire
need of money, asked Esteban Ramoran and his wife to do her the favor
of buying the land in question which they did for the sum of P100. It
is stated therein that Felipa Ramos ceded and conveyed to said spouses
the said parcel of land for them to manage, plant, and enjoy and that
she shall never molest them in their enjoyment of its ownership
intimating that she shall have no more right to redeem for the reason
that the sale was absolute. This shows that the deed is not an
equitable mortgage as claimed, but an absolute sale. This sale took
place on November 11, 1935.

Then came the sale made by Ramoran of the same property to Marcelo
Vea on August 28, 1936 which was ratified before a notary public. Since
this transfer, Marcelo Vea had been in possession of the land without
interruption until the filing of the present action, notwithstanding
the attempt made by the sheriff to place the spouses Acoba in
possession thereof on December 12, 1948, because of Vea’s opposition
and the failure of said spouses apparently to put up a bond to enforce
the execution. With this antecedent it would appear clear that when on
December 5, 1943 Esteban Ramoran, Felipa Ramos and the sisters Colcol
executed the deed of partition (Exhibit A) whereby the same parcel of
land was adjudicated to Felipa Ramos, neither Ramoran nor Felipa Ramos
had any right to do so because they had already ceased to have any
title to the property. The fact that the sale made to Marcelo Vea on
August 28, 1936 has not been registered is immaterial considering that
the property is not registered in accordance with the Land Registration
Act. Such lack of registration cannot have the effect of giving to
Felipa Ramos a better right over Marcelo Vea especially if we consider
that the latter has been in possession thereof since 1936.

Much stress is laid on the fact that the question as to who is the
owner of the land has already been passed upon by the court in Civil
Case No. 240 which was brought by the spouses Acoba against Esteban
Ramoran who has refused to yield the possession of the land
notwithstanding the execution of the deed of partition Exhibit A. In
that decision the spouses Acoba were declared to be the owners as
successors-in-interest of Felipa Ramos and it is now claimed that such
a decision is res adjudicata and is binding upon Marcelo Vea being a privy or grantee of the losing party.

This claim is untenable for the simple reason that Marcelo Vea was
not a party to the case nor was he a successor-in-interest “by title
subsequent to commencement of the action” (Section 44, b, Rule 39).
Marcelo Vea became the owner of the property much prior to the
commencement of the action, or since 1936, and as such he could not
have been bound by a decision wherein he was not a party even if he had
acquired it from the defendant Esteban Ramoran. It is very likely that
the result of the case would have been different had he been given an
opportunity to protect his interest.

Considering the facts of this case as found by the Court of Appeals
we are persuaded to conclude that Marcelo Vea has a better right to the
property not only because he acquired it much earlier, but because he
has been in possession thereof for more than ten years peacefully and
without interruption so much so that the spouses Acoba tried to eject
him therefrom through a criminal action which failed because of lack of
merit.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. The case is dismissed without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Diokno, JJ., concur.