DOMINGO ALMIROL AND MARIA CARIÑO, APPLICANTS AND APPELLANTS, VS. RAFAEL MONSERRAT, GUARDIAN OF THE MINORS EMILIO RIVERA Y RICANOR AND DOMINGA RIVERA Y RICANOR, OPPONENT AND APPE…

This
appeal deals with the second parcel sought to be registered in the
above entitled proceeding, the registration having been denied by the
Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, except as to one-half of portion
“a” of said parcel, which was ordered registered in the name of
the applicants. The latter appeal from the judgment and assign various
errors thereto.

By agreement of the parties, the following facts appear in the record: That, of the parcel in question, portion “b” was acquired by Bartolome Ricanor in the year 1874 by occupancy; that portion “a”
of said parcel was acquired by purchase from Josefa Bugayong, widow of
Pedro Alias, on April 17, 1907, by the spouses Bartolome Ricanor and
Maria Almirol, who were married in the year 1881; that these spouses
had a daughter by the name of Leonora Ricanor who was married with
Estanislao Rivera, the latter having died on August 30, 1910; that
Bartolome Ricanor died on July 6, 1912, and his daughter Leonora in
turn died on November 29 of the same year 1912, leaving two
children,—Emilio Rivera Ricanor and Dominga Rivera Ricanor.

These two grandchildren of Bartolome Ricanor are the herein opponents and appellees.

The applicants and appellants alleged, and presented evidence to the
effect, that they are and have been in possession of the parcel in
question since the year 1912, when Bartolome Ricanor, before his death,
and his wife Maria Almirol delivered to them said land pursuant to a
verbal contract of sale for the price of P1,500 payable by
installments, of which the applicants had then paid to the sellers P500
on account, and the latter delivered to them the documents of the lands
Exhibits F and G, which are possessory informations, the first, that
is, Exhibit F, referring to portion “b” of the parcel in question, and issued in the name of Bartolome Ricanor, and the second, namely, Exhibit G, to portion “a”
of the same parcel, in the name of Pedro Alias, his widow having sold
the land to the spouses Bartolome Ricanor and Maria Almirol.

The applicants have also introduced evidence to the effect that since
then their possession has been, and is up to the present time, under
claim of ownership, exclusive and continuous; that upon the death of
Bartolome Ricanor, his widow demanded of them the payment of the unpaid
balance of the price, arid as they had no money to make such payment,
it was agreed between them and said widow to sell the land to a
Chinaman by the name of Uy Quico, with the right of repurchase reserved
to the applicants (Exhibits J, K and L); that said agreement was
carried into effect and after the land was repurchased by said
applicants, Maria Almirol executed two deeds of sale in their favor
(Exhibits H and I), one for the portion “a” and the other for the portion “b,” of the parcel in question.

From the evidence it finally appears that Bartolome Ricanor and Maria
Almirol and, before them, their predecessors in interest, had been in
possession of said land long before the year 1894 as owners, publicly,
peacefully and continuously, until said possession and title were
delivered to the herein applicants in the year 1912.

So that
taking into account the possession of the applicants, together with the
possession of Bartolome Ricanor and his wife, it clearly appears that
the applicants are entitled to have their title over said parcel
registered, as applied for in this proceeding.

But the trial
court, applying section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that
the applicants could not invoke either their possession of the land or
that of their predecessors in interest, for the reason that the
transfer made in their favor by Bartolome Ricanor and his wife was
verbal; and that for this reason the possession of the former could not
prejudice the opponents, both of whom were minors at the time of the
trial of this case, inasmuch as the period of prescription could not
run against them while they were under age.

But section 335
of the Code of Civil Procedure upon which is founded the denial of the
application for these appellants makes only ineffective the action to
enforce performance of the contracts therein enumerated, but does not
declare them absolutely void and of no legal effect.

Said
section 335 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable where, as
in the instant case, the verbal contract is adduced, not for the
purpose of enforcing performance thereof, but as the basis of the
lawful possession of the applicants entitling them to have the land
thereby sold registered in their name.

Even if this were a
case for the specific performance of such a verbal contract of sale,
still the theory might be invoked that said section 335 of our Code of
Civil Procedure refers to executory rather than executed contracts; and
the one before us is a contract partially executed since a part of the
price was paid by the applicants in the year 1912 to the spouses
Bartolome Ricanor and Maria Almirol, and pursuant to said contract said
spouses delivered then the land to the herein applicants, as well as
the documents pertaining thereto.

Consequently the evidence
introduced in this case relative to the sale in question should not be
rejected, but must be taken into account, and is considered by this
court in the decision of this case.

Giving said evidence its
worth, it appears that the applicants had the right to have the whole
land in question registered in their name.

For the
foregoing, the judgment appealed from is reversed so far as it is in
conflict with this opinion, and it is ordered that the whole of the
second parcel in question, with the improvements thereon, be
adjudicated to and registered in the name of the conjugal partnership
of Domingo Almirol and Maria Cariño. Without special finding as to
costs, it is so ordered.

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