ALBERTO BARRETTO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. LEONARDO F. BARRETTO ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. ANGELICA MARIA BARRETTO ET AL., INTERVENERS AND APPELLANTS.

This case was begun in the Court of First Instance of Zambales by Alberto
Barretto, who claimed delivery to him of a piece of land which was a part of the
hacienda named “Balintagac” together with its. fruits or their value, and also
of a lot situated in the same hacienda together with the rents thereof, and was
brought to this court on appeal, by bill of exceptions, presented by the counsel
for the defendants and the defendant interveners from the judgment entered on
July 2, 1915, in the office of the clerk of the said Court of First Instance, by
which, after declaring that the said Alberto Barretto y Blanco is the owner of
the hacienda of Balintagac described in the complaint, it was ordered that the
defendant Leonardo F. Barretto deliver to the plaintiff the possession of the
piece of land and the lot withheld, and to pay, tog-ether with the other
defendants, the costs of the action.

In his complaint of November 11, 1913, filed in the Court of First Instance
of Zambales, Alberto Barretto alleges as his first cause of action that he is
the owner of the whole hacienda called Balintagac, situated in the barrio of the
same name, in the municipality of San Felipe of said province, having an area of
about 200 quinones antiguos, and bounded on the north by the Anonang
River; on the south by the Carmen Mountain; on the east by the corner of
Balintagac; and on the west by the Tectec Mountain. Thathe was in possession of
the said hacienda quietly, peacefully, and continuously, as were his
predecessors since the year 1884 until May, 1912; that on a certain day of the
latter “month and year, the defendant Leonardo F. Barretto alleging himself to
be the owner of a certain part of said hacienda illegally and unduly usurped a
portion of land of the said hacienda on the eastern part situated in Ilum-Ilog,
Santa Maria and Inubo-grande y pequeno, Santa Maria and Carupisan, bounded on
the north by the Anonang River, on the east by the Golongoro River and the
corner of Balintagac, on the south by the Balintagac and Inbo mountains, and on
the west by the rest of the hacienda which the plaintiff at present holds; that
since that time the defendant had been receiving two-thirds of the fruits which
the usurped portion annually produced, which amounted to 33 uyones and
145 and 33 per cent cavanes of rice at P8 per uyon and P2 a
cavan, and whose value amounts to the sum of P554; that the defendant refused to
return that portion of land usurped together with the fruits received, or their
value, in spite of the fact that he has been required to do so in writing by the
plaintiff.

That, as a second cause of|action, the defendant, on the said month of May,
1912, illegally took possession of a lot situated in the same hacienda and
barrio of Balintagac, bounded on the front by the provincial road, on its right,
left, and rear sides by lands of the hacienda belonging to the plaintiff,
measuring 18 meters in front by 48 meters deep, that is, an area of 864 square
meters, which lot should reasonably produce for its use a monthly rent of P1,
and that in spite of the fact that the plaintiff had requested the defendant to
vacate and to deliver the said lot to him with its rents, he (defendant) refused
to return the said lot or pay the rents therefor, for which reason the plaintiff
prayed judgment in his favor ordering the delivery or restitution of the said
portion of land and lot, claimed in his first and second causes of action,
together with the products of rice said to have been received, and those which
in the future may be obtained, or their value, and the sum of P18 for the
reasonable use of the lot since May, 1912, to October, 1913, and the rent that
it should produce at the rate of P1 a month until the actual delivery of the lot
shall have been made, with the costs of the action.

The demurrer to the said complaint having been overruled, the counsel for the
defendant in an answer dated May 23, 1914, denied each and every one of the
allegations contained in the complaint and alleged that the defendant is in
possession of the land and lot claimed in the first and second causes of action
of the complaint, as well as of the rest of the hacienda, that is, that he is in
possession of all the hacienda of Balintagac as the true owner thereof since
1881.

Upon the permission of the Court, the attorney for Angelica Barretto, Beatriz
Barretto West and her husband, J. C. West, Maria Teresa Barretto York and her
husband Archibald C. York, Carlos Alejandro Barretto, Bernardo O. Barretto, and
Ernesto E. Barretto, filed a complaint of intervention in this case, alleging
among other things that the hacienda of Balintagac in controversy was owned and
possessed by Juan Antonio Barretto, sr.; that on his death in Zambales on
November 21, 1881, he left seven children called Juan Antonio Barretto,
domiciled in Macao, Angelica Maria Barretto, a resident of Manila, Leonardo F.
Barretto, a resident of San Felipe, Zambales, Francisca Barretto also domiciled
in Macao, Bartolome Barretto, a resident of Kow Loon, China, and the now
deceased Jose A. Barretto and Leopoldo Barretto, and these seven children of the
deceased Juan Antonio Barretto, sr., were his only heirs who succeeded him in
all his rights and actions and for this reason they became owners with the right
of possession of the said hacienda of Balintagac, as in fact they are at present
in possession of the same through their agents and representatives; that one of
his children Jose A. Barretto on his death in 1893 left three children, Beatriz
Barretto, Amalia Barretto, and Jose Conde Barretto, who succeeded in all the
rights of their father Jose A. Barretto and in the possession of the said
hacienda, as well as the four children of Leopoldo F. Barretto, who died in
1894, named Maria Teresa Barretto, Carlos Alejandro Barretto, Ernesto E.
Barretto, and Bernardo .O. Barretto, coowners and copossessors of the said
hacienda; that the interveners deny that the plaintiff Alberto Barretto is the
owner of any part of the said hacienda and the lot mentioned in the complaint,
or that the said plaintiff was in possession of them, or any portion of the
same, and that the defendant Leonardo F. Barretto is in possession of the said
hacienda Balintagac and the lot described in the complaint as the representative
of the interveners and of the other coheirs of the estate of the deceased Juan
Antonio Barretto, sr., since the said Leonardo F. Barretto being one of the
coheirs, is not the only owner of the said hacienda, nor of any part of the
same, except that portion which belongs to him as one of the heirs of the
original owner, but without any right to withhold the possession of the hacienda
as against the interveners, and concluded by asking that they be declared owners
as the heirs of their deceased ascendant Juan Antonio Barretto, sr., of their
respective undivided shares in that hacienda and lot mentioned in the complaint,
adjudging to them the possession of the same, with the costs.

The counsel for Amalia Barretto Moore and her husband, J. B. Moore, residents
of San Francisco, California, with the permission of the court filed a complaint
of intervention proclaiming their intention to unite, take part and reproduced
the application for intervention formerly asked by Angelica Maria Barretto and
others, adopting all the allegations contained in the former complaint of
intervention with the prayers therein made.

The demurrer interposed by the plaintiff having been overruled and the court
having ordered Juan Antonio Barretto, jr., Amalia Barretto, Jose Conde Barretto,
Francisco Barretto, and Bartolome Barretto to appear and become parties to this
action, with the exception of the plaintiff, the latter in answer to the
complaint of intervention alleged: that he admits the first three paragraphs of
said complaint and denies generally and specifically those following, up to
paragraph 13, except the last of these in which it is alleged that Leonardo F.
Barretto was the representative of the interveners and of the other heirs of
Juan Antonio Barretto, sr., which part is admitted. As a special defense he
alleged that by a notarial document executed May 16, 1882, Juan Antonio Barretto
Grandpre, jr., then executor of his deceased father Juan Antonio Barretto, sr.f
declaring himself to be the absolute owner of all the hacienda of
Balintagac—the boundary of which is expressed and its area is 200
quinones—borrowed money in the sum of P11,000 from Antonio Vicente
Barretto for the expenses of the said hacienda with the obligation to pay P1,000
for delinquency and other causes and interests at 8 per cent per annum, payable
quarterly in advance, and as guaranty for said loan he mortgaged specifically
the cultivated half of the hacienda and other properties mentioned in the
instrument and to this effect the brothers of said Juan Antonio Barretto
Grandpre intervened and procured the granting of the loan for the indicated
purpose, inducing the creditor to grant said loan on the security of the
mortgage above mentioned; that for the failure of the debtor to pay his debt,
the creditor Antonio Vicente Barretto, on April, 1885, brought an action to
foreclose the mortgage in order to recover the money loaned, against Juan
Antonio Barretto Grandpre in his own behalf and as executor of his father. The
trial was at first conducted against himself and then against Leonardo F.
Barretto as attorney in fact of said Juan Antonio Barretto Grandpre. Half of the
mortgaged hacienda was levied upon and a judgment to sell the property was
rendered, but said half of the attached hacienda could not be sold in spite of
the fact that it was placed at auction three times, its price in the last two
having been reduced; then the creditor, about May, 1888, prayed for the
adjudication of all the property attached to the payment of his credit of P7,648
to which adjudication and conveyance in part payment the defendant Lieonardo F.
Barretto voluntarily agreed and consented as attorney in fact of Juan Antonio
Barretto Grandpre. That Juan Antonio Barretto, jr., and his brothers, not being
able to pay the debt, interests, and costs delivered and conveyed all the
hacienda of Balintagac to the creditor about the year 1889 or 1890. That from
these years the brothers of Juan Antonio Barretto Grandpre named Leonardo F.
Barretto, Jose Barretto, Leopoldo Barretto, and Bartolome Barretto administered,
by the appointment and exclusive account of Antonio Vicente Barretto, the entire
hacienda, acknowledging him as the owner of all of it and delivering to him all
its products till April 1896. That in this month of that year Antonio Vicente
Barretto leased the whole hacienda for P900 annually to Luis Bonifacio Barretto
who administered it till his death in 1902 with the knowledge and without the
objection of Lieonardo F. Barretto, the attorney in fact and representative of
his brothers and coheirs. That on the death of Antonio Vicente Barretto his
children Antonio Maria Barretto y Rocha, Ricardo Esteban Barretto y Rocha and
Guadalupe Barretto y Rocha succeeded him, and about the year 1902 they appointed
Antonio T. Barretto y Blanco.as administrator of the entire hacienda with its
annual rent of P225 and he administered it continuously without any interruption
whatsoever till May or June, 1912, when Leonardo F. Barretto illegally took
possession of two portions of the said hacienda the area and boundaries of which
are described in the complaint. That on March 31, 1913, Antonio and Ricardo
Barretto y Rocha, by means of a notarial document, sold to the plaintiff Alberto
Barretto y Blanco the two-thirds part which belonged to them as heirs of the
creditor Antonio Vicente Barretto. That about June, 1902, Guadalupe Barretto y
Rocha with the consent of her husband donated all her rights and interests as
heir of Antonio Vicente Barretto, in the hacienda Balintagac, to the plaintiff
Alberto Barretto, on condition that the donee should deliver to every one of his
brothers or the latter s children one eighth part of what the donation
consisted, and Alberto Barretto, having acquired the rights which Ricardo,
Antonio Maria, and Guadalupe Barretto y Rocha had as successors of Antonio
Vicente Barretto, over the whole of the said hacienda, the plaintiff has
possessed the same quietly, publicly, and peacefully as its owner until May or
June, 1912, when Leonardo F. Barretto usurped and retained certain portions of
the property and its land tax (with the sworn declaration of ownership since it
was introduced up to the present) has been paid by him in the name and on the
account of the heirs of Antonio Vicente Barretto.

As a special defense and as an estoppel he (plaintiff) alleged that Juan
Antonio Barretto, jr., and his brothers Leonardo F. Barretto, Bartolome
Barretto, Jose Barretto, and Leopoldo Barretto by their own acts induced Antonio
Vicente Barretto intentionally and deliberately to believe that Juan Antonio
Barretto, jr., had full and absolute power to dispose of all the hacienda of
Balintagac, by reason of which the creditor executed the loan on the security of
the said property and then his brothers by their own acts acknowledged Antonio
Vicente Barretto as the owner of the whole hacienda, and Leonardo F. Barretto,
on his part, as attorney in fact of Juan Antonio Grandpre, jr., and as
representative of his coheirs agreed to the adjudication of the attached and
cultivated half of the referred hacienda in favor of Antonio Vicente Barretto in
payment of the sum of P7,648. Lastly and likewise as a special defense he
(plaintiff) alleged prescription for the reason that Antonio Vicente Barretto in
his own behalf and in that of his successors and through his representatives,
administrators, lessees and grantees, since 1889 and 1890 had been in possession
of the hacienda publicly, quietly and peacefully till May or June, 1912, without
any interruption and as owner of the whole of said hacienda by means of which
possession they had acquired the dominion and ownership of all the said
hacienda by acquisitive prescription, and at the same time all the
rights and actions which Leonardo F. Barretto and the interveners could have or
might allege as to all or part of it, have prescribed; and, therefore, Alberto
Barretto asked the court to dismiss the complaint of intervention, declaring him
the owner of all the hacienda of Balintagac, with costs to the defendants and
interveners.

The counsel for the interveners in answer to the special defenses alleged in
the preceding pleading, said that he denies generally and specifically all that
was alleged in it by the plaintiff, defendant in the intervention.

After the trial and the introduction of evidence on both sides, the exhibits
being attached to the record, the court by judgment recorded in the office of
the clerk of the Court of First Instance of Zambales July 2, 1915, rendered the
decision above mentioned, against which the defendants and the interveners
excepted and asked for a new trial, which was denied and exception was taken to
the ruling by them. The corresponding bill of exceptions having been presented,
the same was approved and forwarded to this court together with the document and
transcript of the stenographic notes and other proceedings which constitute the
evidence adduced by the parties in the action.

The fact is uncontroverted and fully proved in the record that Antonio
Vicente Barretto as creditor—not being able to collect his credit of Tl 1,000
and interest at 8 per cent, nor obtain the adjudication in his favor of half of
the hacienda of Balintagac which was mortgaged for the security of the debt, and
there having been no bidders on the three occasions in which it was offered for
public auction—took possession, in 1888 or 1889, of all the hacienda and from
that time on received through his administrators the products of the same for
the purpose of collecting his credit and interests, arid on the lack of proof to
the contrary it may be established that he took possession of said hacienda by
virtue of voluntary assignment with the express consent of the heirs of the
deceased Juan Antonio Barretto, sr., owner of one-half of the hacienda and of
Juan Antonio Barretto Grandpre, jr., owner of the other half.

It does not fully appear which contract has been entered into between the
creditor and the said heirs of the deceased Juan Antonio Barretto, sr., and his
son Juan Antonio Barretto Grandpre; but from the facts that have been fully
established it is inferred that since the years 1888-1889, once the foreclosure
proceedings brought by the creditor Antonio Vicente Barretto against Juan
Antonio Barretto, jr., were suspended, because the creditor had not been able to
obtain the adjudication of the hacienda in his favor, the creditor took
possession of the hacienda of Balintagac, and held it in usufruct with the
knowledge and express, consent of its legitimate owners; thenceforth there has
not been any opposition or protest against the possession which by usufruct the
creditor and his successors enjoyed, aside from the usurpation of two small
portions of that property effected by the defendant Leonardo F. Barretto in
1912.

Considering that from the facts proved, which refer to the possession and
usufruct enjoyed by Antonio Vicente Barretto while living, and then by his
successors among whom was the plaintiff, Alberto Barretto y Blanco, it is
logically deduced that such facts were accomplished by virtue of a verbal
contract, and not by a written one, entered into between the owners of the
hacienda and the creditor Antonio Vicente Barretto. Since from the documentary
and oral evidence on record it is not shown that the debtors have delivered the
whole hacienda to the creditor by assignment of the property, m payment of the
debt that weighed down, as it were, the half which secures the payment of the
debt it is to be presumed with founded and just reason that the debtors
delivered not only one half, but the whole hacienda with a view that
the creditor might collect by usufruct his credit with the accrued
interests.

Even when it cannot possibly be doubted that the assignment of the hacienda
to Antonio Vicente Barretto was not made in payment of his credit, as shown by
the evidence adduced at the trial, nevertheless, in spite of the fact that the
agreement between the creditor and the debtors was not set down in any document,
due to the relationship which exists between them, it may safely be asserted,
assuming the facts that took place, that the debtors have limited themselves to
give to the creditor the right to collect his credit from the fruits of the
hacienda of Balintagac, conferring upon him the possession of the property, but
not transferring to him the dominion of the same, since such transfer does not
in any way appear to be proved in the present action.

The agreement or verbal stipulation which lead to the facts proved deserves
in law the name of antichresis as defined by the Civil Code in its article 1881,
which says:

“By antichresis a creditor acquires a right to receive the fruits of real
property of his debtor, with the obligation to apply them to the payment of the
interest, if due, and afterwards to the principal of his credit.”

The perusal of the following articles, 1882 to 1886, of the Code, shows in a
convincing way that the possession of the hacienda enjoyed by the creditor
Antonio Vicente Barretto while living and later on by his successors up to the
present time was conferred to them by virtue of the stated contract or agreement
in antichresis; thus, one of the administrators of the hacienda, Luis Barretto,
was the one who presented the sworn declaration of ownership of the same for the
purposes of the assessment tax and paid the land tax in the name of the creditor
who possessed and held the hacienda in usufruct, as it is duly established in
the record.

Although article 1884 of the same Code states that the creditor does not
acquire through possession the ownership of the real property delivered by
virtue of an antichresis, for failure to pay the debt within the stipulated
time—any agreement to the contrary being void—nevertheless, the debtor according
to the preceding article 1883 cannot recover the use of the real property given
in antichresis to the creditor, without previously fully paying the creditor,
who in case of insolvency may ask for the sale of the real property which he
possesses by virtue of the covenant in antichresis, unless the pending debt be
paid.

It appears to be duly proved in the record that in 1912 the defendant
Leonardo F. Barretto, by himself and for himself and without the consent of the
present possessor now the plaintiff, took over and usurped a portion of land of
the hacienda and a lot included in it, withholding and refusing to deliver them
to the creditor in antichresis on the pretext that he is the owner of the whole
hacienda; and as it does not appear in any way that the debt, for the payment of
which the whole hacienda of Balintagac was delivered in antichresis, has been
paid, it is doubtless that the defendant Leonardo F. Barretto, when he effected
the usurpation, acted without just reason and in contravention of the provisions
of the said article 1883 of the Civil Code. It is known that the action to
recover a thing, where a
legitimate possessor has been deprived of his
possession, takes place in accordance with the law, even against the owner
himself, who wrested the possession, since the despoiler can never be protected
by the law even on his right of ownership, without first restoring what he
acquired through his authority by an illegal act of dispossession.

It is to be inferred from the facts and the foregoing statements that though
the plaintiff Alberto Barretto has no title of ownership over the hacienda of
Balintagac, and therefore, he can not be declared owner of the same,
nevertheless, his claim that a judgment be rendered ordering the return to him
of the portion usurped by the defendant Leonardo F. Barretto which refers to the
first cause of action of his complaint, as well as the lot described in the
second cause of action of the same, which is withheld by said defendant, is in
conformity with the law and is in accordance with the merits of the present
action. The plaintiff being in the legitimate possession and use of all the
hacienda of Balintagac which was voluntarily delivered to him by Juan Antonio
Barretto Grandpre, jr., and his coheirs as the successors of the deceased Juan
Antonio Barretto, sr., with the object that the creditor Antonio Vicente
Barretto might collect the capital and interests which they owed and still owe
him—a lawful contractual act called by law a covenant or agreement in
antichresis—the debtors, or any of them, can under no circumstances while the
debt exists and is not fully paid, recover or reacquire, as the mentioned
article 1883 provides, the possession and use of the real property delivered to
the creditor, without the latter giving his consent; consequently, the defendant
Leonardo F. Barretto without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff Alberto
Barretto who succeeded by singular title in the possession and use of the
hacienda in question, could not have recovered by usurpation the possession and
use of a portion of the same.

Although the plaintiff affirms in his complaint that he is the sole owner of
the said hacienda and as such he claims in his complaint the delivery of the
portion of the land and the lot withheld by the defendant, his complaint is not,
even then, explicit enough to affirm that the action brought thereby is a
technical one and precisely that of recovery of possession
(reivindicatoria). In a complaint whereby the “accion
publiciana” is brought, also called in law a plenary action of possession,
the restitution and delivery of the thing or real property of the possession of
which the plaintiff has been illegally deprived is equally asked for. Therefore,
it should not be understood that, because the plaintiff Barretto asks for the
delivery of the portion of land and lot claimed in his complaint, the action
brought is that of recovery of ownership and possession
(reivindicatoria) : it should be understood, instead, that he seeks to
recover the portion of land, of the legal possession of which he has been
improperly deprived by the usurper, Leonardo F. Barretto; since the facts should
be established in the suit as grounds for decision in accordance with the
results of the evidence adduced at the trial. When the defendants denied the
ownership which the plaintiff pretends to have over the said hacienda, they have
not denied nor could they deny the existence and the certainty of the debt
guaranteed by the mortgage of one-half of the hacienda of Balintagac in favor of
the creditor, now deceased, Antonio Vicente Barretto; nor could they allege and
prove that the debt has been entirely paid, so that they may reacquire and
recover the possession and use of the hacienda which was delivered to the
original creditor, the predecessor of the plaintiff.

The preceding facts in this case are beyond discussion, since it appears duly
proved in the record that the original owner of the hacienda of
Balintagac, according to the composition title issued by the State, Exhibit A,
on July 9, 1858, was Antonio Lorenzo Barretto, now deceased, from whom Juan
Antonio Barretto, sr., acquired one-half of said hacienda, on March, 1881
(Exhibit C), and Juan Antonio Barretto, jr., had acquired the other half from
the said original owner Antonio Lorenzo Barretto, on November, 1881.

After the death of Juan Antonio Barretto, sr., his son Juan Antonio Barretto
Grandpre, in his own behalf and as the executor of his father, mortgaged, on May
16, 1882, the cultivated half of said hacienda in favor of Antonio Vicente
Barretto as security for the amount of P11,000 which the latter loaned to him,
according to the document, Exhibit F, recorded in the registry.

In order to show how and in what manner the plaintiff Alberto Barretto
succeeded to the rights acquired by the creditor Antonio Vicente Barretto to
whom the hacienda was delivered in 1888 or 1889, that he might collect his
credit from the products of the property, it is stated that on the death of the
said creditor his three children and heirs Antonio M.a Barretto, Ricardo Esteban
Barretto, and Guadalupe Barretto came to succeed him. The last one by means of a
document, Exhibit 1, executed July 5, 1902, made a donation inter vivos in favor
of the plaintiff Alberto Barretto of the undivided one-third part of the
hypothecary credit and of the rights belonging to her deceased father Antonio
Vicente Barretto, assigning to the donee all the rights and actions which she
might have in the foreclosure proceedings exhibited at the trial of the present
action, on the condition that as soon as the donee Alberto Barretto could
collect the said one-third part of the credit or should obtain the assignment of
the property of the debtor, he would divide what was donated, into nine equal
parts among the donee himself and his six living brothers and the heirs of their
two brothers now dead, each receiving one-ninth part.

In the public documents, Exhibits J, J-1, J-2, J-3, J-4, J-5, and J-6, it
appears to be established that the plaintiff Alberto Barretto, complying with
the condition imposed in said document of donation executed by the donor
Guadalupe Barretto, paid to each of his brothers and nephews, the latter by
right of representation, the sum of P875 as the price of one-eight part of one
third of the said hacienda and in exchange for the sums received as such price
his co-donees assigned and conveyed to him one-eight part of the third of the
said hacienda and whatever rights and interests the grantors might have’by
virtue of the said donation in favor of the plaintiff Barretto. It is to be
noted that the plaintiff bought one-eight undivided part of the third of the
whole hacienda of Balintagac and paid to every claimant P875 as the price of the
eight part to him, and, without these statements appearing in said seven
documents Exhibit 1, it may be understood at the third part of the ownership of
the hacienda was ansferred to the plaintiff by the donor Guadalupe Barretto.

In fact, with the mutual purpose on the part of the brothers Antonio M.a
Barretto and Ricardo Esteban Barreto and of that of Alberto Barretto of
transferring to the latter the rest or the two-thirds part of the hypothecary
credit and of the right to collect its value from the fruits of the hacienda of
Balintagac, the notarial document, Exhibit K, was executed and after reciting in
it that one undivided half of said hacienda was in May, 1882, mortgaged to
secure the sum of P11,000, at 8 per cent per annum, which Juan Antonio Barretto
Grandpre received from his uncle Antonio Vicente Barretto, and for neither
having paid the debt nor having sold the said half of the mortgaged hacienda on
the three occasions in which it was offered for public auction, the whole
hacienda was delivered to the creditor in order that he might collect his credit
and interests. From that time on the said Antonio Vicente Barretto and later on
his successors have been in possession of the hacienda, receiving the fruits of
the property, paying the expenses and the corresponding taxes, the outcome being
that the debt, capital and interests, up to March 31, 1913, according to the
liquidation, amounted to about one hundred thousand pesos. It is further stated
that by virtue of the same, the grantors, the brothers Antonio M.a Barretto and
Ricardo Esteban Barretto, sold and conveyed all their rights and actions
included and derived from the said hypothecary credit for the price of P14,000
which would be paid by the grantee and vendee by installments and in the manner
prescribed in the said deed, assigning to him, besides, all the rights which the
said brothers had over the two-third parts of the said hacienda.

The contents of this documents, which is public in nature, as well as those
of another deed, Exhibit 1, conclusively prove that the plaintiff did not obtain
by assignment, sale, or transfer, as expressed in said deeds, the ownership of
the said hacienda of Balintagac, but only the hypothecary credit which the heirs
of the deceased creditor Antonio Vicente Barretto had inherited from the latter,
after the plaintiff had obtained from his other brothers the conveyance of their
respective rights to the donation.

The rights acquired by the creditor were transmitted by hereditary title
through operation of law to the heirs of the same Antonio M.a, Ricardo Esteban,
and Guadalupe, Barretto y Rocha and these in turn assigned, sold and transferred
the credit with all their rights as hypothecary creditors, as well as the right
to the usufruct of all the hacienda of Balintagac to the plaintiff Alberto
Barretto, without it being ever understood that the right of ownership over the
same was transferred for the reason that neither the original creditor Antonio
Vicente Barretto nor his three heirs had acquired such right of ownership, but
merely the right to receive the products of the hacienda in order to cover the
credit which the owners of the hacienda owed.

If the fact were not certain that the hacienda was delivered by its owners to
the creditor Antonio Vicente Barretto, it cannot be understood why it is that in
the long course of this action the defendant and the interveners could not
explain how and in what manner Antonio Vicente Barretto took possession of the
hacienda in 1888 or 1889 after the termination of the said foreclosure
proceedings, nor could they explain how and why several of the coowners of the
said hacienda had acted as administrators of the same in the name and
representation of the creditor Antonio Vicente Barretto.

It appears from the record without any contradiction whatsoever that the
first who administered the said hacienda in the name and by direction of Antonio
Vicente Barretto was the defendant Leonardo F. Barretto himself till the year
1890 in which year the latter voluntarily left by direction of the creditor and
was succeeded by his brother Jose Barretto till 1893, when Leopoldo Barretto
entered as administrator relieving Jose Barretto by order of Antonio Vicente
Barretto himself, till 1894. In this year the defendant Leonardo F. Barretto
himself returned to act as administrator by direction and in the name of the
creditor Antonio Vicente Barretto, till the year 1895, when according to the
letter of Leonardo, Exhibit L, and the letter, Exhibit M, of Antonio Vicente
Barretto by direction of the latter the defendant Leonardo F. Barretto delivered
the hacienda to his other brother Bartolome Barretto. It is to be noted that in
the said letter, Exhibit M, Antonio Vicente Barretto advised the defendant
Leonardo to tell the tenants of the hacienda to transact their business with
Bartolome as the administrator. In 1896, because of the death of Bartolome
Antonio Barretto, Luis Bonifacio Barretto succeeded him as administrator, who
managed the hacienda in the name of the same creditor. After the deathof the
latter; he (Luis) dealt with Antonio M.a Barretto, one of the heirs of the
deceased creditor. On August, 1902, because of the death of the above-mentioned
Luis Bonifacio Barretto, his brother Antonio T. Barretto succeeded him in the
administration of the hacienda in the name and account of the heirs of the
deceased Antonio Vicente Barretto and the said Antonio T. Barretto continued to
act as administrator of the hacienda in the name of the plaintiff Barretto, who
acquired the rights of the heirs of the deceased creditor Antonio Vicente
Barretto, until the beginning of the present action.

These facts which have been fully established show that the whole hacienda
was delivered to Antonio Vicente Barretto so that he might collect his credit,
and this is corroborated by the letters which have been exchanged between Juan
Antonio Barretto Grandpre, jr., residing abroad and Antonio Vicente Barretto, as
well as by the account, Exhibit 3, rendered to Juan Antonio Barretto, jr., by
Antonio Vicente Barretto up to December 31, 1888, in which the hypothecary
credit of P11,000 with its interests amounting to P16,255.70 still appear
existing and complete. Such facts cannot in any way prove that Antonio Vicente
Barretto took possession of the hacienda in the character of owner although he
had been appointing administrators until his death in 1897 and the
administrators had dealt with him while living for the determination of the rent
of the hacienda and other particulars, as well as the fact that the declaration
of ownership for the assessment of the property was made in his name and the
payment of the land tax due was made on his account, for the reason that he
acted as creditor in antichresis, and not as owner and proprietor of the
hacienda, which fact does not appear to be proved by the oral evidence, while
the contrary has been fully established by the documentary evidence attached in
the record.

That the said verbal contract of antichresis was not set out in some document
is not contrary to what has been said, since the same, being a consensual
contract, has the elements enumerated in article 1261 of the Civil Code and was
complied with and carried into effect without any difficulty whatsoever from the
year 1888 until 1912, that is, during more than 24 years, without any protest or
objection on the part of any of those who could and probably had the right to
impugn it; but, on the contrary, several of the coowners of the hacienda
usufructed by the creditor submitted themselves to the discretional orders of
the latter in the exercise of his right as creditor in antichresis, the former
acting successively as administrators of the very hacienda of which they were
coowners; and they only dared to oppose and to overlook the facts whose
realization many of them have helped, from the time the defendant Leonardo F.
Barretto, who on two occasions administered the hacienda in the name and on the
account of the creditor Antonio Vicente Barretto, dared to usurp a portion of
the hacienda and to deny the unquestioned rights of the plaintiff which were
directly derived from the said creditor, now dead, taking possession of two
portions of the hacienda in usufruct, in his own behalf, while the whole debt,
or part of it, still exists for the payment of which the right of usufruct is at
present exercised.

In other respects, the proceedings in the present action do not offer any
legal cause or reason by virtue of which it can be established that the
plaintiff has acquired the ownership of the said hacienda by prescription, since
the original possessor entered into possession of the same with the consent of
the owners and not as owner, but as a creditor with the right only to collect
his credit on the fruits of the said hacienda, and the plaintiff could not
acquire better rights than those which had been conferred upon him by his
predecessors in possession. Thus, article 1884 of the Civil Code declares that
the creditor cannot acquire the ownership of the real property for failure to
pay the debt within the time agreed upon. Any stipulation to the contrary shall
be void.

It is, therefore, clear and beyond all discussion that the possession enjoyed
by the predecessors of the plaintiff has not been conferred by the owners of the
hacienda to the creditor that the latter might acquire the ownership of the
property, but merely that from its products he might collect the existing debt.
Consequently, the possession exercised by the creditor Antonio Vicente Barretto,
not being under title of ownership because no right of ownership could have
taken place, the present possession of the hacienda can not possibly turn into a
title of acquisitive prescription of the property.

Furthermore, it does not appear that the donation made by Guadalupe Barretto
and the sales or assignment made by Antonio M.a Barretto and Ricardo Esteban
Barretto were that of the ownership or dominion of the hacienda, but the
hypothecary credit and whatever right the donor and the assignors and vendors
had against the owners of the hacienda, as it is clearly expressed in the
documents Exhibits 1, and K above referred to. The rights acquired by the
plaintiff Alberto Barretto consist, without any doubt whatsoever, of what the
said three brothers of the creditor Antonio Vicente Barretto had transferred to
him and under no circumstance could it be understood that they transferred the
dominion and the ownership of the said hacienda.

As the extinguishment of the right of the creditor and the termination of the
use and possession of the real property depend upon the entire payment of the
debt and its interest, it is proper—the liquidation of accounts having been
made—to fix definitely the sums of the amounts which the debtors had paid on
account of the capital and interests and which had been really received by the
creditor.

For these considerations, whereby some of the errors, assigned against the
sentence appealed from as notoriously opposed to the foundation of right and
justice laid down in this decision, are deemed to have been refuted, holding the
plaintiff to be in legitimate possession of the said hacienda, the defendant
Leonardo F. Barretto should be sentenced and we sentence him to vacate and
release immediately—otherwise subject to an order of ejectment—the portion of
land and lot included within the boundary of the hacienda Balintagac, and place
same at the disposal of the plaintiff, Alberto Barretto, or of his
representatives; it being understood that before liquidation, the actual amount
of the debt be fixed, which debt, in the form of capital and interest, is
collectible from the products of the hacienda, by the adjustment of the amounts
paid and received on their account to cover the debt. There is no special
finding as to costs in both instances; thus, that part of the judgment appealed
from, which is in conformity with this decision is affirmed and that contrary to
it is reversed- So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Carson, Street, Malcolm, and Avancena,
JJ., concur.

Araullo, J., did not take part.