EUGENIO TOLENTINO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. ANACLETO ILAGAN AS EXECUTOR OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF IGNACIO ILAGAN, DECEASED, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE. MODESTA TOLENTINO AND HER …

This
case had its origin during the Filipino Revolution against the Spanish
sovereignty. It is claimed that Ignacio Ilagan had the plaintiff
arrested on a charge of stealing his, Ilagan’s, carabaos. That at the
time Tolentino was a large property holder, and based upon the charge,
he was thrown into the provincial jail of Batangas in September, 1895,
where he remained without trial until January, 1896, That Ilagan, now
deceased, agreed to compound the alleged felony with Tolentino and
withdraw the charge and procure his release, provided the latter would
sign a contract for the sale of the land here in question to and in
favor of Ilagan. That Tolentino signed the contract, known in the
record as Exhibit G, on January 25, 1896, in and by which Ilagan was to
pay and Tolentino was to receive P3,000. It is claimed that the money
was never paid, and that for such reason, Tolentino refused to deliver
to Ilagan either the land or the original title of it. That from
January 25, 1896, until December, 1910, Tolentino continued to remain
in the open, notorious possession of the land, at which latter date
Ilagan had Tolentino again arrested and thrown into prison in the
municipality of Tuy, Batangas, on the trumped-up charge of stealing
bamboo from the land in question, and that Ilagan’s possession of the
land dates from December, 1910. It also appears that in January, 1907,
Ilagan commenced an action against Tolentino for possession of the
land, which case was decided in favor of the defendant. In 1907 Ilagan
brought another case against Tolentino which was decided in favor of
Ilagan. It is alleged that the intervenor, Modesta Tolentino, was born
October 23, 1882, and that she is the legitimate daughter of the
plaintiff, Eugenio Tolentino, and that she seeks to intervene in this
suit, because she is the only heir of her mother of the land in
question.

The real question involved here is, Who is the legal owner and entitled to possession of the land?

The defendant Anacleto Ilagan filed the following answer:

“Comes now the defendant, through the undersigned attorneys, and in answer to the above-entitled complaint, alleges:

“1. That he admits paragraph 1 of the complaint and the identity of the land in question described in paragraph 3 thereof.

“2. That he denies specifically and determinated each and every one of the remaining paragraphs of said complaint.

“As special defense alleges:

“(a)
That the land in question belongs in fee simple to the heirs of the
deceased Ignacio Ilagan, father of the defendant, since several years
ago.

“(b) That Ignacio Ilagan acquired said land
by purchase, first, from the defendant, and then by valid and final
judgment of our Honorable Supreme Court, which is now subject to
execution, against the herein plaintiff, who was defendant before,
under date of September 21, 1907; about the title to the land now
described in his complaint, civil case No. 185 of the docket of this
court. (See order of the same court under date of October 5,
1907, signed by the then Judge of First Instance of Batangas, who was
then Honorable J. S. Powell.)

“(c) That the plaintiff is in estoppel by judgment.

“(d) That the action now brought by the plaintiff, as set forth in his complaint, constitutes res judicata, between the parties, their successors in interest and privies.

“(e) That the action now brought by the plaintiff has already prescribed.

“For all of the foregoing,
the defendant, through his undersigned attorneys, prays the court to
absolve him from the present complaint, with the costs of the suit
against the plaintiff.

“He also prays for such further relief as may be deemed proper in law and justice.”

The case was tried upon such issues, and the lower court rendered
judgment in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff and
intervenors appeal, contending that the lower court erred in holding
that the decision of the Court of First Instance of Batangas in civil
case No. 185 settled the title to the land, and in holding that the
plea of prescription should be sustained either against the plaintiff
or the intervenors, and in holding that the prescription commenced to
run from the death of the mother, and in holding that the property
rights of the intervenors have prescribed, and in refusing to permit
proof of the annual products of the land and their value, and in
deciding the case in favor of the defendant.

JOHNS, J.:

The record presents a peculiar situation. Both parties rely upon
separate decisions of the same judge. It appears that the case on which
the plaintiff and intervenors rely had its origin in the justice of the
peace court of Baiayan, Province of Batangas, and was brought by
Ignacio Ilagan against the plaintiff to recover possession only of the
land now in question, which case was later appealed to the Court of
First Instance, where a decision was rendered in favor of the defendant
Tolentino. That is known as civil case No. 155. In that action, the
only question tried was one of possession, and in which both parties
claimed possession. No other question was litigated. The case having
its origin in a justice of the peace court, no other question could
have been litigated. That decision was rendered by Judge J. S. Powell.

March, 1907, Ignacio Ilagan commenced an action in the Court of First
Instance against the plaintiff here in which he claimed that he was the
actual owner of the land, and that as owner, he was entitled to
possession of it. In that case the plaintiff here filed an answer in
which he denied Ignacio’s title to the land, and claimed that he was
the owner of it, and in an exhaustive opinion, the same judge, who
rendered the former decision, decided the case in favor of Ignacio
Ilagan, and that judgment long since became and is now final. It was
rendered in what is known as civil case No; 185, and that is the
judgment upon which Anacleto Ilagan now relies and based upon which he
pleads res judicata.

Assuming all the facts to be
true, as alleged in plaintiff’s complaint, it may be that the decision
in case No. 185 is wrong, and that the plaintiff at one time had a just
cause of grievance. Be that as it may, the court in that case decided
that for a consideration of P3,000 the plaintiff had sold the land in
question to Ignacio Ilagan, and that Ignacio Ilagan was the owner of
the land, and it is through him that the defendant here deraigns title.
The court held that:

“All the proofs in
this cause being considered in conjunction with the surrounding
circumstances, conclusively show that plaintiff (Ignacio Ilagan) must
recover this land.”

That decision is now binding not only upon the plaintiff but upon the intervenors.

It appears that Modesta Tolentino was born October 31, 1882. She sought
to intervene in this action on November 15, 1920, at which time she was
nearly 38 years old, and she testified that her mother, Maria Asuncion,
died, leaving six parcels of land, and she does not claim to have been
in possession of the land since 1910.

At this time there is
no merit in her claim to the land in question, and there is no legal
principle upon which it could be sustained.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Malcolm, Street, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.