SOTERA DE GUZMAN ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. JUAN PANGILINAN AND GUILLERMA AZARCON, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This was an action by the plaintiffs brought to recover the possession of and
to be declared the owners of the parcel of land particularly described in
paragraph 2 of the complaint, together with damages for the wrongful withholding
of the possession of the same.

The plaintiffs are the children and grandchildren of Dimas de Guzman and
Felipa de los Reyes, his wife.

To the complaint the defendants presented a demurrer. The demurrer
alleged:

First. That the plaintiffs had no legal capacity to maintain the action.

Second. That the facts alleged in the complaint were not sufficient to
constitute a cause of action.

Third. That some of the defendants had been erroneously included as
plaintiffs.

Fourth. That the complaint was ambiguous, unintelligible and uncertain.

After hearing the arguments of the respective parties, the lower court
overruled the demurrer, to which ruling the defendants duly excepted.

The defendants then answered the complaint, presenting a general and special
defense. In the special defense, the defendants alleged that they had acquired
the parcel of land in question by purchase from the plaintiff Petra de Guzman
and had paid therefor the sum of P2,000.

Upon the issues thus presented the lower court found that the parcel of land
in question had been inherited by Petra de Guzman and the other plaintiffs from
their parents, Dimas de Guzman and Felipa de los Reyes; that there had never
been a partition of the parcel of land in question among the coheirs of the said
Dimas de Guzman and his wife.

The lower court further found that Petra de Guzman had sold her undivided
interest in said parcel of land to the defendants and that, therefore, the
defendants were the owners of the one-fifth undivided part of said parcel of
land and ordered the defendants to immediately return the possession of the land
to the plaintiffs, as coheirs, and to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of P800 and
the costs.

The lower court further ordered that after his decision became final there
should be a partition made between the said coowners.

From that decision the defendants appealed to this court and made a number of
assignments of error.

With reference to said assignments of error, we deem it necessary only to
discuss the fourth, fifth, and sixth. Said assignments of error relate to the
title and ownership of the parcel of land in question. From an examination of
the evidence brought to this court, we find that a preponderance of the evidence
shows the following facts to be true:

First. That the plaintiffs are the children and grand-children of Dimas de
Guzman and Felipa de los Reyes, his wife.

Second. That Petra de Guzman, one of the plaintiffs, is the youngest child
and that her parents (Dimas de Guzman and Felipa de los Reyes) continued to live
with her upon the parcel of land in question until the time of their death.

Third. That prior to the death of Dimas de Guzman and Felipa de los Reyes,
they were the owners of other parcels of land located in the same district in
which the parcel of land in question is located.

Fourth. That prior to
the death of Dimas de Guzman and his wife, they made a partition of all of their
real estate, giving to each of their children a certain parcel.

Fifth. That the parcel of land in question was given in said partition to
Petra de Guzman, as her share and participation in the estate of her
parents.

Sixth. That some time after the death of her parents, Petra de Guzman sold
the parcel of land in question to the defendants herein and delivered to them
the possession of the same.

Seventh. That the defendants, after having purchased the said parcel of land
from Petra de Guzman, went into possession of the same as owners, and have
peaceably and quietly remained in such possession ever since.

Eighth. At the time of the partition, by the ancestors of the plaintiffs,
each of the heirs entered into possession of his respective share. This
partition seems to have been mutually made and assented to by all of the
interested parties. No written document was made of the partition at the time,
neither was it necessary to evidence the partition by a written document. The
law did not require this division or partition of the inheritance to be reduced
to writing. (Madamba vs. Magno, 10 Phil. Rep., 86.)

It clearly appears that at the time of the sale of said parcel of land by
Petra de Guzman, she was the owner and had a perfect right to sell and transfer
the same to the defendants, and that the defendants thereby became the owners.
It also appears that the other plaintiffs had no right, title, or interest in
said land, as owners, nor in the possession of the same. Therefore, and without
discussing the other assignments of error, the judgment of the lower court is
hereby reversed and the defendants are hereby relieved from any liability under
the complaint, without any finding as to costs.

Arellano,, C. J., Torres, Carson, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo,
JJ., concur.