THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, APPLICANT, VS. DALMACIO ABALOS ET AL., CLAIMANTS. HEIRS OF BASILIO REGUYAL, APPELLANTS, AND PLACIDO CABILES ET AL., APPELLEES.

STREET, J.:


The combined appeals in these two cases are concerned with two rival claims
to lots 959, 960, 961, 973, 997, 1001, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1034 and 4304 in
cadastral expedientes Nos. 23 and 24, G. L. R. O. record Nos. 657 and 660. The
individuals representing the two conflicting interests are numerous; and the
land in contention is located in the municipality of Umingan, in the Province of
Pangasinan. For cadastral purposes it has been divided into the lots enumerated
above, forming what was formerly part of a larger mass. The appellees are the
successors in interest of Adriano Reguyal, son of Basilio Reguyal. The
appellants are also descendants of Basilio Reguyal. The question raised by the
appellants is, briefly, whether the land now in question formerly belonged
exclusively to Adriano Reguyal or to him and his other brothers and sisters in
common.

The chain of title of the appellees begins in Adriano Reguyal, who, in 1894,
procured and caused to be properly registered a possessory information covering
all of the land now in controversy. This information was extended in the name of
Adriano Reguyal as possessor, and it is in due form of law, having been duly
registered in 1894 in the office of the register of property of the province. In
1909 Adriano Reguyal sold said property for a valuable consideration to one
Domingo Belisario (Exhibit D), who entered into possession promptly after the
purchase of the property was effected by him. Later Belisario at various times
sold the land, in small parcels, to the present possessors, over seventy in
number, who are the appellees in this case.

It is proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Adriano Reguyal held
peaceful possession of this property from about the year 1890 until he sold it
to Belisario, and that the produce of the land, while it was in his possession,
was enjoyed by himself, to the exclusion of all other persons. It is further
proved that from the time Belisario acquired the property in 1909 the produce
has been, enjoyed by himself and his successors in interest without disturbance
from any one, though in 1920 an action of reivindicacion was instituted by
Paulina Casimina, one of the present appellants, and others, to recover the
property from the occupants (the appellees).

The appellants’ ease supposes that the land in question, having an area of
nearly 300 hectares, formerly belonged to Basilio Reguyal, who died about 1889,
leaving six children, who inherited said land as property in common. It is
furthermore claimed that this property has never been divided, with the result
that at least a five-sixths undivided interest therein belongs to the
plaintiffs. Iii this connection it is asserted that the possessory information
was extended in the name of Adriano Reguyal because he was, the oldest son of
Basilio Reguyal, and because it was not convenient for the other persons in
interest to attend at the office of the official before whom the information was
drawn up and promulgated. It is claimed furthermore that there was an agreement
among the heirs to the effect that the taking of the possessory information in
the name of Adriano should not prejudice the right of the other heirs.

We are of the opinion that the trial court was right in awarding the property
to the appellees, who derive title from Adriano Reguyal, through Domingo
Belisario. The latter was clearly a bona fide purchaser for value from
the apparent owner, Adriano Reguyal, without notice of the alleged rights of the
appellants. Furthermore the appellees, the actual occupants of the property, are
purchasers for value under Domingo Belisario, and the duration of their
successive possession extends over at least forty years. Any right on the part
of the appellants has therefore been extinguished by adverse possession even
supposing that the property originally pertained to Basilio Reguyal and not
exclusively to his son Adriano.

An attempt is made to avoid the effects of the long continued adverse
possession of the appellees and their predecessors in interest by means of the
minority of one of the appellants, Paulina Casimina, who is said to have been
born in 1900, and who accordingly must have attained majority in 1921. It should
be borne in mind, however, that the possession of Adriano Reguyal began before
the birth of this claimant, and it is a rule that before the statutory saving in
favor of a minor can be effective, it must appear that the right of action
originated in the life of such minor. In other words, if the statute of
limitations once begins to run against a parent, before a child is born, there
is no saving in favor of the child. Otherwise stated, the rule is that, adverse
possession beginning during the life of the ancestor will be effective against
his infant heirs. The protection afforded by the statute is for those against
whom adverse possession is first asserted and who may at that time be under
disability. (Armstrong vs. Wilcox, 57 Fla., 30; 131 A. S. R., 1080;
Jackson vs. Moore, IS Johns. [N. Y.], 513; 7 Am. Dec, 398; Scallon
vs. Manhattan R. Co., 185 N. Y., 359; 7 Ann. Cas., 168; Garner vs. Wingrove
[1905], 2 Ch., 233; 3 Ann. Cas., 837; 3 British R. Cas., 737.) It results that,
in the case before us, the title of the appellees is perfect, and was such when
the appellants filed their claim to the land in this case.

There is another aspect of the case which is equally decisive against the
claim of the appellants, and it is this: When the appellants or their ancestors
consented for the possessory information to be taken exclusively in the name of
Adriano Reguyal, the latter became a trustee in effect f or the others,
supposing these to be owners of the property in common with Adriano, as they
claim; and Adriano necessarily acquired a power of disposition adequate to
convey the possessory right to any bona fide purchaser from him.

The right of the appellants was thereby reduced to a mere equity, which is
ineffective against Domingo Belisario and purchasers under him.

What has been said goes on the assumption that the land with which we are
here concerned belonged in life to Basilio Reguyal and that the title descended
at his death to all of his children in common. This fact mainly rests, however,
on the testimony of one of the appellants, and the correctness of the assumption
is open to grave question.

The judgment appealed from will be affirmed, and it is so ordered, with costs
against the appellants.

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