NAZARIO TRILLANA, PETITIONER, VS. FAUSTINO MANANSALA, MARIA LOPEZ, MAXIMA MANANSALA AND THE COURT OP APPEALS, RESPONDENTS.

To a revindicatory complaint filed in 1950 in the Court of First Instance by
Nazario Trillana over a parcel of land in Hagonoy, Bulacan, the defendants
Faustino Manansala et al., set up title through sale and prescription.

Both parties allegedly deriving ownership from the registered owner Marcos
Bernardo, presented at the hearing:

(a) Plaintiff—the contract of absolute sale (Exhibit A) executed in
his favor in June 1948 by Vicenta Bernardo, daughter and the only surviving heir
of Marcos Bernardo;

(b) Defendants—the document Exhibit 1, in tagalog, which is
translated as follows:

“Julio 20, 1934-1944

I Marcos Bernardo married of legal age and residing at barrio S. Sebastian,
Hagonoy, Bulacan, P. I. now I own a land (latian) * * * now my above mentioned
property I mortgage to Mr. Faustino Manansala and Maria Lopez husband and wife
in the amount of P1,070 beginning today July 20, 1934 until April 1944 and if I
cannot pay said amount come April 1944 the property I mortgaged is hereby paid
to Mr. Faustino Manansala and Maria Lopez husband and wife * *
*.”

The judge found Exhibit 1 to be a forgery, and rendered judgment for
plaintiff, saying as to prescription, that even if defendants had possessed the
land since 1934, they could not acquire by prescription because they had no just
title, inasmuch as they knew Exhibit 1 was false.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals saw differently. It was not convinced of the
document’s (Exhibit 1) falsity, and held that since defendants admittedly took
possession of the realty in July 1934 pursuant to such document and retained it
thereafter, the action filed in 1950 was late, inasmuch as more than 15 years of
adverse possession forfeited the plaintiff’s right to recover, if any.

Doubting the legal feasibility of acquiring, thru prescription, land obtained
under Exhibit 1, we gave due course to the petition for review on certiorari,
being impressed with counsel’s contention that said written document represented
a contract of antichresis, which may not give rise to acquisitive
prescription.

Upon a fuller examination of the matter, we are now persuaded that our
preliminary impressions were justified. The document Exhibit 1, having used the
words “Isinangla”, “sinangla” and “matubos obviously indicated a mortgage,
which, coupled with delivery of possession of the land to the creditor, amounted
to antichresis.

And several decisions of this court consistently hold that the antichretic
creditor cannot ordinarily acquire by prescription the land surrendered to him
by the debtor.^[1]

The most that defendants could contend under Exhibit 1 is that it was a sale
with pacto de retro. Yet no argument is needed to show that, even under
such contract, prescription does not run during the period of redemption
(1934-1944).

In this connection we notice the Court of Appeals did not regard the contract
as a pacto de retro sale. The Court of Appeals declared the agreement
was a “kaliwaan” or exchange, which according to defendants meant, “after the
execution of the document we delivered the money, and plaintiff delivers
possession of the land”.. The arrangement however contemplated a subsequent
“re-exchange” when the owner redeems (matubos) on or before April 1944. Such
exchange and re-exchange agreed in Exhibit 1, dovetail with an antiehretic
relationship, which we think was the true agreement of the parties.

It has not escaped our notice that the document says “if I cannot redeem come
April 1944, the .property I mortgage is hereby paid to Mr. Faustino Manansala”.
But that in our opinion merely authorized Manansala to get the property for
payment, thru the proceedings prescribed for mortgages. Otherwise the
stipulation would be open to attack, either as pactum commissorium or
as against the law. (Arts. 1859 and 1884 Civil Code.)

Now as the contract Exhibit 1 did not divest Marcos Bernardo of ownership of
the property, his heir Vicenta Bernardo could, and she did, validly convey such
ownership to Nazario Trillana in 1948, by Exhibit A. Subject of course to the
rights of the antiehretic creditors, the defendants Manansala et al.

Wherefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and one will be
promulgated requiring defendants to deliver the lot to the plaintiff
(substituted by Candida Cruz, Juana Trillana and Francisco Trillana) upon
payment by the latter of the amount of Pl,070.^[2] No interest is to be satisfied, because
the fruits gathered by the Manansalas are considered as interest; no special
damages too. Costs against defendants. So ordered.

Pablo, Acting C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo,
Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed.

---

^[1] Barretto vs. Barretto, 37
Phil., 234; Valencia vs. Acala, 42 Phil., 177.

^[2] Aldea vs. Fuentes, 24
Phil., 303.