DALMACIO VINLUAN, AGATON VINLUAN AND CIRIACO VINLUAN, PETITIONERS, VS. TEODORA MERRERA, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN AD LITEM NATALIA MERRERA, RESPONDENT.

On November 20, 1944, respondent TEODORA MERRERA with the
assistance of her guardian ad litem Natalia Merrera filed a
complaint in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan against
petitioners Dalmacio Vinluan, Agaton Vinluan and Ciriaco Vinluan to
declare herself exclusive owner of one-half (½) portion of a fishpond
located at Malindong, Binmaley, Pangasinan, with an area of 8,128 sq. m.
declared under Tax Declaration No. 46558, and to recover possession of
the property belonging to her, including damages for her having been
deprived of possession since 1933. The defendants therein claiming to
have bought the whole fishpond from PEDRO C. MERRERA moved that their
vendor be notified of the complaint by means of summons in accordance
with the provisions of Art. 1482 of the Civil Code. Defendants later
filed a third party complaint against him. After hearing, the trial
court found that one-half (½) of the fishpond in question really
belonged to plaintiff Teodora Merrera, having inherited it from her
father ARCADIO MERRERA; that the defendants surnamed Vinluan acted in
bad faith in buying the fishpond from Pedro C. Merrera fully knowing the
rights and interests of plaintiff in the same. The court declared
plaintiff the owner of ½ of the fishpond pro indiviso and ordered
defendants to deliver possession to her and to pay her damages in the
sum of P100.00 yearly from the year 1933. On appeal to the Court of
Appeals, said tribunal affirmed the decision of the lower court. The
case has been brought here for review of the decision of affirmance.

The facts of the case as found by the Court of Appeals and
which are conclusive according to law are as follows. Rufino Merrera,
grandfather of respondent Teodora Merrera was the exclusive owner of the
whole fishpond in question. Rufino married Dominga Castro and the
couple had three children-Pedro, Arcadio and Natalia, all surnamed
MERRERA. Rufino died on March 29, 1920. Thereafter, the three children
entered into an agreement on the partition of the property left to
them, namely, that the two brothers Arcadio and Pedro would divide
equally the fishpond while their sister Natalia would get two urban lots
left by their father. Arcadio, one of the brothers, died on August 16,
1932, leaving respondent Teodora as his only child.

On June 6, 1929, that is, about nine years after the death of
her husband Rufino, Dominga Castro and her son Pedro C. Merrera sold the
whole fishpond to one Santiago Fernandez with right to repurchase for
the sum of P650.00. The vendors repurchased the fishpond on June 2,
1933 but on the same day Pedro C. Merrera executed a deed of sale of the
fishpond in favor of the herein petitioners surnamed Vinluan for
P1,000.00. The annual net products of the property is valued at
P200.00. The Court of Appeals further found that Arcadio never
authorized his brother Pedro to sell his undivided ½ share in the
fishpond nor did he make any representation to that effect to any
person; that neither did he cede his rights and interests in the
fishpond in question; that the defendants had always been residents of
the same locality where the Merreras lived and that they actually owned a
fishpond adjoining the fishpond in question, so, they knew the rights
and interests the Teodora had on the same; and that when they purchased
said fishpond Atty. Celestino Palma advised them to have the property
surveyed and registered right away because he had some doubts as to the
title of the same.

Under the facts as found by the Court of Appeals and which we
accept as conclusive, because there is nothing in the record to show
that its conclusions of fact find no support whatsoever in the evidence,
the appellant petition for certiorari has no merit. Petitioner invoke
the principle of estoppel on the theory that when the entire fishpond
was first sold by Dominga Castro and her son Pedro in 1929, Arcadio
filed no objection and led the petitioners to believe that he had no
interests in the said fishpond and so they bought the said fishpond in
1933 with the understanding that it belonged to the vendor PEDRO C.
MERRERA. On at least two grounds, this claim cannot be accepted. In
order to established estoppel against Arcadio it must be proven that (1)
he was present at the sale of the fishpond in 1929 or that he knew of
the said sale and that he cannot only kept silent but led other parties
to believe that he had no right or interest in the property sold, and
(2) that the vendees were ignorant of the truth or of the facts and were
misled into buying the fishpond. These two requisites are lacking in
the present case. On the contrary, as found not only by the trial court
but also by the Court of Appeals, the petitioners herein were living in
the same place as Arcadio and they actually owned a fishpond adjoining
the fishpond in question and they knew that ½ of the said fishpond
belonged to Arcadio and it was later inherited by his daughter Teodora,
the respondent herein.

It is also contended by appellants that the widow Dominga
Castro under right of usufruct should be alloted a portion of the
products of the fishpond, in which case, the P100.00 found by the court
as net yearly product to be given to respondent should be reduced. This
claim, if at all meritorious, should not be made by the petitioners but
by the proper party.

We deem it unnecessary to pass upon the other points raised in
the petition. The decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed,
with costs.

Paras, C. J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Reyes,
Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.