CIRIACO PACHECO, ESTRELLA RAZO-REY AND BENVENUTO ABITRIA, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, DANIEL HERNANDEZ AND ANASTACIO RANESES, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
decision of the Court of Appeals dated April
19, 1978, which reversed the decision of the Court of First
Instance of Sorsogon declaring the petitioners as the
owners of the lands subject of this case.^[1]

The antecedent facts are as follows:

1.  Emiliano
Pacheco owned a parcel of unregistered land covered by Tax Declaration No.
12490, later changed to Tax Declaration No. 3420 and then to Tax Declaration
No. 6704, with an area of 4,698 square meters, more or less.^[2]

2.  In 1939, Emiliano Pacheco sold to Rafael Pacheco some 1,170 square
meters of the said land, which portion was then covered by Tax Declaration No.
3431.^[3]

3.  This portion was
mortgaged by Rafael Pacheco to the Philippine National Bank, sold at public auction
upon foreclosure of the mortgage in 1959, and repurchased by Rafael Pacheco on April 20, 1960.^[4]

4.  On September 7, 1964, Rafael Pacheco sold the said
land to Ciriaco Pacheco, who thereafter sold a
portion thereof to his co-petitioner, Estrella Razo-Rey.^[5]

5.  In a civil case entitled
“Daniel Hernandez v. Emiliano Pacheco,” a decision was rendered on October 10, 1963, in favor of the
plaintiff.  To enforce it, certain
properties, including the land in question, were levied upon and sold at public
auction.  Hernandez, herein private
respondent, was the purchaser.^[6]
These properties were covered by new Tax Declarations Nos. 6522 and 5924, which canceled the earlier tax declarations
covering the portions claimed by the herein petitioners.

6.  On December 2, 1969, private respondent Hernandez
filed a complaint against the petitioners,
alleging that the lands the latter were occupying and which they refused to
vacate were part of the property covered by Tax Declaration No. 6704 which he
had acquired in the judgment sale.^[7]

7.  This complaint was
dismissed, the Court of First Instance* declaring
the petitioners as the lawful owners of the disputed property, which they had
acquired through prescription, except as to Arbitria
who had bought his lot from Emiliano Pacheco.^[8]
From this decision, the private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals,** which reversed the lower court.^[9]

The respondent court held
that the petitioners’ claim of acquisitive prescription was untenable because
their possession of the property in dispute was interrupted when the Philippine
National Bank acquired it at the fore­closure sale in 1959 and held it for one
year before it was repurchased by Rafael Pacheco in 1960.  The ten-year period for prescription had not
been completed.  It also held that, not
having registered his opposition to the attachment and execution sale of the
lots he was claiming as his own, petitioner Abitria
was now barred from asserting ownership over the said properties.^[10]

From the aforesaid
decision of the Court of Appeals and its subsequent resolution denying their
motion for reconsideration, the petitioners have brought this petition for
review, alleging that they are the owners of the disputed property by virtue
either of prescription or of sale.^[11]

The issues are as follows:

1.  Whether or not the
petitioners may be allowed to claim the property by purchase.

2.  Whether or not the
petitioners acquired the pro­perty by
acquisitive prescription.

Petitioners’ claim to the
disputed property was based not only on prescription but also on the alleged
sale of the same by Emiliano Pacheco in January 1939,
and its sale by Rafael in September 1964, to Ciriaco
Pacheco, who sold a portion thereof, Lot No. 4, to Estrella
Razo-Rey on December 23, 1965. 
Petitioner Abitria likewise claimed that he
purchased Lot No. 5 from Emiliano Pacheco on April
28, 1950.^[12]

On these claims, the
Court of First Instance of Sorsogon declared as
follows:

“x x
x.  Be
that as it may, Ciriaco Pacheco asserted that after
his father bought the property from Emiliano Pacheco
sometime in 1939, he and his father occupied the land and their possession was
public, open, peaceful, continuous, uninter­rupted, adverse and in concept of
owner.  The land they occupied is the
very land which he is at present occupying or Lot 3
indicating Lot 4 which he later sold to Mrs. Rey.  He further alleged that his late father even
constructed a house where they lived on Lot 4. 
Unfortunately, the house built by his father was burned
down during the conflagration that hit that district of Donsol
in 1963.  However, after the
conflagration, Ciriaco was able to construct his own
house but already on Lot 3.  Considering the long and uninterrupted
possession of Ciriaco Pacheco under claim of
ownership starting from
1939 up to the present, it is
believed that he has acquired Lot 3 as well as Lot 4 by acquisitive prescription.”^[13] (Underscoring supplied.)

The above finding was not disputed by Ciriaco
Pacheco and Estrella
Razo-Rey.  In
fact, they impliedly agreed with the trial court that they had acquired the
disputed property by virtue of prescription and thereafter kept silent about
the alleged sale.  Although it was only
the purchase made by Benvenuto Abitria
which the trial court held as valid and binding, the other two petitioners did
not challenge its ruling insofar as it impliedly rejected their own claim of
purchase.  Having failed to do so, they are now estopped from asserting that
they had bought the lands they are now claiming.

The respondent court held
that as the land was acquired in the foreclosure proceedings by the PNB in
1959, the ten-year period of acquisitive prescription was not completed.^[14] As a consequence of the
cut-off caused by the take-over of the land by the bank, Rafael Pacheco ceased
to be the possessor of the property for more than one year and the period of
prescription was thus interrupted.^[15] The applicable provision is Article 1121 of the Civil Code, reading as
follows:

“Art. 1121.  Possession
is naturally interrupted when through any cause it should cease for more than
one year.

“The old possession is not revived if a new possession should
be exercised by the same adverse claimant.”

Briefly stated then, the
argument of the private respondents runs as follows:  Rafael Pacheco repurchased the land in
question from the PNB on April 20, 1960. 
Since Ciriaco Pacheco derived his title from
Rafael Pacheco, the latter’s possession from April 20, 1960 up to September 7,
1964, when the land was sold to the former, could be tacked to the possession
taken over by Ciriaco Pacheco when he bought the
land.  However, his total possession did
not ripen into acquisitive title because the ten-year prescriptive period was
not completed.  Reckoned from April
20, 1960, when
Rafael Pacheco repurchased the land from the Philippine National Bank, the
period would have been completed on April 20, 1970.  The
trouble is that on December 2, 1969, before prescription could set in, the
complaint for the recovery of the land was filed by the private respondents,
thus interrupting the running of the period.^[16]

This argument, however,
has not taken into account an earlier possession, to wit, that of Rafael
Pacheco also, but beginning 1939, when he bought the land in question from Emiliano
Pacheco.^[17]

Although both the trial court
and respondent court accepted the petitioner’s claim of such a sale, the subject thereof was, however, not positively identified.  The land purchased by Rafael from Emiliano Pacheco was covered by Tax Declaration No. 12490 with an area of 4,698 square meters,
and in his name.  On the other hand, the
land fore­closed by the bank, which Ciriaco’s father
later repur­chased and then sold to him, was covered by Tax Declaration No.
3431 with an area of 1,170 square meters, and in the name of Rafael Pacheco.  It was not shown by Ciriaco
that Tax Declaration No. 3431 revised in part or in whole Tax Declaration No.
12490.  Nevertheless, whether or not the
subject of the sale was the land in dispute, it was clearly established that
Rafael Pacheco started occupying the same since 1939 and that his possession
was public, open, peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted, adverse and in the
concept of owner until and even beyond 1949. 
After ten years of such possession, acquisitive prescriptive title was
vested in Rafael Pacheco, pursuant to Article 1134 of the Civil
Code.  Consequently, when he mortgaged
the land to the PNB, he did so not as a mere possessor but as an owner by
virtue of prescription under Article 1134 of the Civil Code.  Article 1121 could no longer apply to him
because the ten-year prescriptive period had already been completed at the
time.

It follows that when Rafael Pacheco sold the land to Ciriaco Pacheco, the latter acquired the rights of the
former as owner of the property, and not as a mere pos­sessor thereof,
and so did the other petitioners who derived their title from Ciriaco Pacheco.

The rule in execution sales is that an execution creditor
acquires no higher or better right than what the execution debtor has in the
property levied upon.^[18]
The purchaser of property on sale under the execution and levy takes as
assignee only, as the judicial seller possesses no title other than that which
would pass by an assignment by the owner.^[19]
“An execution purchaser generally acquires such estate or interest as was
vested in the execution debtor at the time of the seizure on execution, and
only such interest, taking merely a
quit-claim of the execution debtor’s title, without warranty on the part of
either the execution officer or of the parties, whether the property is
realty or personalty.  This rule prevails even if a larger interest
in the property was intended to be sold. 
Accordingly, if the judgment debtor had no interest in the property, the
execution purchaser acquires no interest therein.”^[20]

Applying the above
principles, we hold that the judg­ment sale in favor of private respondent
Hernandez did not and could not cover the lands claimed by the petitioners as
these lots no longer belonged to the judgment debtor when they were levied upon and sold.  That sale covered only the lands still under
the ownership of the judgment debtor and did not affect the ownership of the
property titled in the name of the herein petitioners.  None of them was a party to the civil case brought
by the private respondent against Emiliano Pacheco.

Finally, as to the effect
of Abitria’s failure to oppose the sale of this land in 1963 to enforce the judg­ment
against Emiliano Pacheco, it suffices to point out that
under Rule 39, Section 17, of the Rules of Court, the claimant who does not
file a third-party claim to the property being levied upon is not prevented
“from vin­dicating his claims to the property by any other action.”
Hence, Abitria is not precluded now from asserting in
the present petition his claim of ownership over the disputed property.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the respondent court dated April 19, 1978, is REVERSED and that
of the trial court dated July 25, 1975
is REINSTATED.  Costs against the the
private respondents.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Narvasa,
Paras, and Gancayco, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 38-48.

^[2]
Ibid., p. 5.

^[3]
Id.

^[4]
Id., pp. 5-6.

^[5]
Id., p. 6.

^[6]
Id., p. 38.

^[7]
Id., p. 39.

* Presided by Judge Ubaldo Y. Arcangel.

^[8]
Id., p. 44.

** Justices L. B. Reyes, ponente, Mama Busran, and Nestor B. Alampay.

^[9]
Id., p. 48.

^[10]
Id., pp. 47-48.

^[11]
Petition, pp. 7-24.

^[12]
Id., pp. 5-6.

^[13]
Id., p. 42.

^[14]
Id., p. 46.

^[15]
Id.

^[16]
Id., pp. 45-46.

^[17]
Id., p. 41.

^[18]
Laureano v. Stevenson, 45 Phil. 252; Cabuhat v. Ansery, 42 Phil. 170.

^[19]
Fore v. Manove,
18 Cal. 436.

^[20]
21 Am. Jur., 140-141.