CONCEPCION MATURAN AND FELICIDAD MATURAN, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. ARCADIO GULLES AND GODOFREDO ESCOBIDAL, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Leyte, dismissing plaintiff-appellants’ action for legal redemption.
The appeal involves a purely legal question with reference to the
application of article 1621 of the New Civil Code.

It appears that the land sought to be redeemed was formerly a part
of a greater area belonging to Domingo Angub which, after the latter’s
death, was in 1932 partitioned among his six children, among them
Perfecta and Heraclio, the portions alloted to these two being
contiguous to each other and each containing less than one hectare.
Upon the death of Perfecta, her portion passed to her children,
Concepcion Maturan and Felicidad Maturan, to the plaintiffs herein,
while Heraclio’s portion was inherited by his children, Julio and
Diosdado, and later by their respective widows and children, who, on
January 29, 1952, sold it to the defendant Arcadio Guiles for P100.
Upon learning of the sale, plaintiffs sought to repurchase the property
in the exercise of their right to legal redemption but as the buyer
refused to resell, they brought the present action for the enforcement
of that right. The action is directed not only against Guiles but also
against Godofredo Escobidal on the theory that the former is only a
dummy of the latter.

The lower court found and it is not disputed that the land sought to
be redeemed adjoins that of the plaintiffs, that it is rural and has an
area of not more than one hectare and that its purchaser already owns
or is a co-owner of another rural land. Upon these findings of facts,
plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the land in question from its
purchaser in accordance with the first paragraph of article 1521 of the
new Civil Code, which says:

“Art. 1621. The owners of adjoining lands shall also
have the right of redemption when a piece of rural land, the area of
which does hot exceed one hectare, is alienated, unless the grantee
does not own any rural land.”

But taking note of the second paragraph of the same article, which
says that the right of redemption accorded by the article to owners of
adjoining lands “is not applicable to adjacent land which are separated
by brooks, drains, ravines, roads and other apparent servitudes for the
benefit of other estates”, the lower court held that it is incumbent
upon the plaintiffs to prove that their land and the one they seek to
redeem are not separated by any of those barriers and dismissed their
action because of their failure to prove that fact.

We agree with plaintiff-appellants that the ruling below is
erroneous. Having proved that their land and that which they seek to
redeem are contiguous, plaintiffs should not be called upon to prove
the contrary by showing that the two estates are separated by a brook,
drain, ravine, etc. As Manresa observes in his comment on the
corresponding article (Art. 1523) of the old Civil Code, it is evident
that two estates do not adjoin each other if they are separated by a
brook, drain, ravine, road or other such apparent servitude, for in
that case each estate would be bounded by the brook, drain, ravine,
etc., and not by the other estate. The one called upon to prove the
existence of a barrier between the two estates is he who wants to
defeat the right of redemption on the grounds that the two estates are
not contiguous to each other.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of dismissal is set aside and
it is ordered that another judgment be entered condemning the defendant
Arcadio Guiles (it not having been established that he was mere dummy
of the other defendant, Godofredo Escobidal) to deed over the land in
question to the plaintiffs upon payment by the latter of the sum of
P100.00. Godofredo Escobidal is absolved from the complaint. With costs
against the defendant Arcadio Guiles.

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