G.R. No. L-4654
LEON CABALLERO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ESTEFANIA ABELLANA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
March 21, 1910

FACTS:
Plaintiff Leon Caballero obtained possession of a piece of land in 1899 and continued possessing it until 1904. From 1904 onwards, by mutual agreement, Caballero utilized the defendants (Estefania Abellana, et al.) to cultivate the land as tenants on shares, with products divided equally. The defendants cultivated the land and shared its products with the plaintiff until 1904.

However, starting with the crop of 1905, the defendants, despite continuing to cultivate the land as share tenants of the plaintiff, refused to give Caballero his part of the crop until 1906. Taking advantage of their control over the land as employees/tenants, they took possession of it without the plaintiff’s consent and against his will, refusing to deliver his share of the products for 1905 and 1906, and also refusing to deliver possession of the land.

Caballero filed a suit in January 1907 seeking reinstatement of possession, payment of his share of the crops for 1905 and 1906, and a permanent injunction. The lower court found in favor of Caballero, ordering the defendants to restore the land, deliver 120 cavanes of unhulled rice (or its equivalent price of 3 pesos per cavan), and issued a permanent injunction. The defendants appealed, alleging that they held exclusive possession. The lower court, however, found that their possession was only in their capacity as laborers or tenants on shares of the plaintiff.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiff’s action for possession is barred by Article 460, No. 4 of the Civil Code, which provides that a possessor may lose his possession if the new possession by another has lasted for more than one year, given that the defendants’ alleged “new possession” began in 1905 and the action was instituted in January 1907.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the lower court’s decision.

The Court held that Article 460, No. 4 of the Civil Code, which states that a possessor may lose possession if the new possession has lasted for more than one year, refers exclusively to possession de facto (actual physical possession) and not to possession de jure (legal possession). Citing the case of The Bishop of Cebu vs. Mangaron (6 Phil. Rep., 286), the Court clarified that this provision is not applicable to actions involving possession de jure.

In this case, the plaintiff, Leon Caballero, maintained possession de jure of the land, while the defendants merely cultivated it as his tenants on shares. Their subsequent act of refusing to deliver the crops and usurping control over the land constituted an illegal act against Caballero’s legal possession, but it did not extinguish his de jure possession nor did it establish a new de facto possession that would fall under the one-year prescriptive period of Article 460, No. 4.

Therefore, the plaintiff, Leon Caballero, remained the legal possessor of the land and was entitled to be reinstated in possession and exclusive usufruct, to receive his share of the crops for the years in question, and to a permanent injunction against the defendants.