G.R. No. L‑2897
November 23, 1906

—

FACTS
1. Pedro Maguyon (plaintiff) mortgaged his land to Agustín Villanueva, who in turn mortgaged it (together with land belonging to Marcelino Agra’s mother‑in‑law) to Ocampo, later transferred to Alad.
2. Agra and Villanueva redeemed the mortgage from Alad; Villanueva instructed Agra to separate Maguyon’s tract from his mother‑in‑law’s tract.
3. Agra sold his mother‑in‑law’s tract to Mariano Aguilan (defendant‑appellant). Villanueva prepared the deed, expressly excluding Maguyon’s land, but Aguilan insisted it was included.
4. When Maguyon attempted to redeem his mortgage, it was discovered that his land had been conveyed to Aguilan. Maguyon, Agra and the justice of the peace subsequently agreed to exclude Maguyon’s land from the sale; Aguilan thereafter fenced the remaining portion.

The trial court, after hearing three witnesses for the plaintiff (including Villanueva, Agra and the justice of the peace) and three for the appellant, found the plaintiff’s witnesses more credible and held that the land belonged to Maguyon. The appellant also offered a prior judgment in his favor on a possession action, seeking to use it as proof of title.

—

ISSUE
Whether the land in dispute is the title of Pedro Maguyon, considering (a) the parties’ intent at the time of the sale between Agra and Aguilan, and (b) the admissibility of a prior judgment on possession as conclusive evidence of ownership.

—

RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment for Maguyon.

The factual findings that the parties did not intend to transfer Maguyon’s land in the Agra‑Aguilan contract were supported by credible testimony and thus upheld.
A judgment on possession does not determine title; Section 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars its use as conclusive proof in a title action.
* Consequently, the land remains owned by Maguyon; costs were imposed on the appellant.

—