PETRONA GAMBOA ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. MODESTA GAMBOA ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This action was instituted in the Court of First Instance of
the Province of Pampanga by various plaintiffs of the surname or connection of
Gamboa, for the purpose of enforcing partition of some ten parcels of real
property located in the municipality of Santa Ana, in the Province of Pampanga,
of which, it is asserted, the plaintiffs are coowners with the defendants
Modesta, Pedro and Rafael, of the same name. At the same time the plaintiffs
seek to obtain an accounting from Modesta Gamboa of the plaintiffs’ shares in
the produce taken from the land in the past.

To this complaint Modesta Gamboa answered with a general
denial, supplemented by an admission that the single parcel constituting the
last item specified in the complaint and identified as tax No. 6247, is in fact
common property of herself and the plaintiffs who are her coheirs, and
asserting, as to the rest, that she is the owner of the same and has been in
adverse possession thereof for more than ten years. The defendants Rafael and
Pedro Gamboa answered with a formal general denial, but at the trial they
admitted the claim of Modesta Gamboa as owner of the contested properties.

Upon hearing the cause the trial court found in all respects
favorably to the contention of the plaintiffs and ordered that partition be made
of all the properties among the interested parties in the following proportions:
To Petrona, Feliciana, Serapion and Balbina, of the surname Gamboa, and to
Mercedes de Jesus, widow of Marcelo Gamboa, one-ninth each; to Andres,
Francisco, Juan, Africa and Regino, children of Regino Gamboa, conjointly,
another ninth, or the one forty-fifth part each; and to Modesta Gamboa,
three-ninths, in view of the fact that Pedro and Rafael had admitted her right.
His Honor also ordered that the defendant Modesta Gamboa should account to the
plaintiffs for their respective shares of the produce obtained from the property
since from the year 1910 upon a basis of an income of P1,400 per annum, and that
she should pay the costs. In this partition his Honor ordered that the lot
identified as tax No. 6502 should be allotted to Modesta, in view of the fact
that she had already sold this lot. From this judgment the defendant Modesta
Gamboa appealed.

All of the properties that are the subject of this action once
belonged to Juan Gamboa and Ana Mañago, the parents of the first set of Gamboa
plaintiffs and of the three defendants of the same name. There is no controversy
over the further fact that on August 27, 1897, Juan Gamboa and wife sold all of
the properties which are the subject of this action, except the parcel
identified by the tax assessment No. 6247, under contract of sale with pacto de
retro for two years to one Felipe Javier, the vendors, however, remaining in
possession in the character of lessees. The period of redemption allowed in this
contract expired without redemption having been effected, and the property
consolidated in Javier. But Juan Gamboa, and after his death, his family,
continued in possession as tenants under Javier. This arrangement continued
until 1910, the year of the death of Ana Mañago, widow of Juan Gamboa. On June
18, 1910, Javier then absolute owner of the properties which he had purchased as
above stated, conveyed the same to the sisters Feliciana and Modesta Gamboa for
the price of P1,700, an amount less by the sum of 920 than the price for which
he had originally purchased them. Of the stipulated price P600 was paid in cash,
proceeding from the sisters Feliciana and Modesta in equal parts. It was agreed
that the balance of P1,100 might be paid in four annual installments, subject to
an extension of the periods if the purchasers should be unable to meet the
payments. To secure these deferred payments the parties declared that a mortgage
was created upon the property which was the subject of conveyance. About three
years thereafter, or on May 21, 1913, Regino P. Gamboa, brother of the two
sisters, paid the sum of P1,100 to Felipe Javier and received from him a
document transferring to him all of the interest in the mortgage which had been
created in Javier’s favor. By this means Regino P. Gamboa was subrogated to the
credit and became owner of the debt of P1,100, which had not yet been satisfied
by the two women. The proof shows that Modesta Gamboa is a shifty and
intelligent woman, always active in a small way in some form or other as of
trading; and she says that in course of time she paid off the P1,100 due to her
brother Regino. The document by which the transfer of the credit had been made
to Regino remained, however, in possession of Regino P. Gamboa until he died in
the year 1920, and it remained thereafter in the hands of Regino’s widow, by
whom it was produced in evidence in this case. Nevertheless, Modesta produced in
evidence a document purporting to be a receipt dated May 21, 1913, and signed
with the name of Felipe Javier, wherein he states that he had upon that day
received P1,100 from Regino P. Gamboa as recited in the document of transfer
above referred to, of the same date. The document has been made the subject of
criticism as an apparent forgery, and it must be admitted that the name of
Felipe Javier signed thereto does not bear much resemblance to his admittedly
genuine signature signed to the assignment of the mortgage. But, even supposing
that this receipt is not genuine, we have no doubt that the P1,100 had been paid
by Modesta to her brother Regino in life; and we see no reason to doubt her good
faith. In this connection it will be noted that Regino died in 1920; and his
widow testified that, although she subsequently had many financial transactions
with Modesta that had been terminated to the satisfaction of both parties, no
payment of the amount stated had ever been made to her by Modesta. We may add
that no claim has ever been made by anybody that the credit acquired by Regino
had not been satisfied. It is incredible that, if this debt had remained unpaid,
no step should have been taken by Regino’s widow to collect the same after his
death. No doubt she was well aware that, as Modesta claims, the debt had been
paid. This conclusion is made more secure by the fact now to be noted.

On December 11, 1922, Modesta Gamboa and her sister Feliciana
entered into a written partition of the parcels of property which had been
purchased by them from Javier. In this partition Feliciana was content with a
much smaller portion than Modesta, and this is explained by the fact that
Feliciana had never advanced more than P300 upon the purchase of the property,
which amount had been paid by her at the time the property was acquired; while
Modesta had not only made her first payment of P300 but had satisfied the unpaid
installments by taking up the mortgage credit from her brother Regino in the
manner already described. This circumstance is fully set out in the document now
referred to and in connection with this point it is declared in said document
that the deferred installments had been “totally paid by the other purchaser,
Modesta Gamboa.” From this it may be inferred that the payment of the P1,100 by
Modesta to Regino was a matter of common knowledge in the family. And at any
rate we believe that such payment had been made.

The proof shows that ever since the property in question was
conveyed by Javier to the Gamboa sisters in 1910, the same has been continuously
in the possession of Modesta, except for the two years 1912 and 1913 when, by
some arrangement or other, one of her brothers had charge as manager. During
this period Modesta exercised all the rights of ownership, accounting of course
to Feliciana for the latter’s share of the produce during the term of their
ownership.

The case for the plaintiffs proceeds upon the idea that the
purchase effected by Feliciana and Modesta Gamboa in 1910 from Javier was a
redemption from the sale with pacto de retro which had taken place thirteen
years previously; and some oral testimony was given for the plaintiffs tending
to show that the right of her brothers and sisters had been admitted at various
times by Modesta Gamboa. This theory of the case, in our opinion, is untenable.
The sale of the property by Javier to the two sisters in 1910 was an
unconditional transfer of title to them, inasmuch as Javier had been undisputed
owner of the property for fully eleven years. Of course if it had really been
agreed that the sisters were purchasing the property in a trust character, that
agreement might have been enforced, but the nature of the title held by the
sisters and the unconclusive character of the proof of trusteeship refute this
theory. We attribute little importance to the form in which the property was
assessed for taxation, in view of the explanation which Modesta gives of the
obstructions which she encountered in straightening that matter out. The
situation, as we see it, is that Modesta Gamboa, during the period in which she
has been part owner of the property and during the later period in which she has
held title in her own name, has been surrounded by kinsfolk who were anxious to
insinuate themselves into a coownership of the property, and this litigation was
undoubtedly promoted chiefly by her brother Serapion Gamboa. But it is
noteworthy that at least two brothers have admitted her title.

The trial judge seems to have entertained the idea that the
case must turn upon the character of the possession exercised by Modesta Gamboa
during the period allowed by law for prescription; and he assumed that it was
necessary for her to show adverse possession during that period. This idea is
not of correct application, because Modesta Gamboa, either conjointly with her
sister Feliciana or exclusively in her own right, has held the legal title since
1910; and the fact that her brothers and sisters may have questioned her right
during the ten years next preceding the institution of this action does not have
the effect of impairing her right.

From what has been said it follows that the judgment appealed
from must be modified to the end that the defendants be absolved from the
complaint, except as to the lot identified as tax No. 6247, as to which lot
alone partition, if not made by mutual agreement within the period of thirty
days from the return of this record to the lower court, shall be effected in the
manner prescribed by law. So ordered, without express pronouncement as to costs.

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