G.R. No. 30240, August 23, 1929
AQUILINA TACAS, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. EVARISTO TOBON, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, heirs of Francisco Dumadag, filed an action to recover ownership and possession of three parcels of land from the defendant, Evaristo Tobon. They alleged that Tobon unlawfully took possession of the lands upon Dumadag’s death in November 1911 and had been collecting their fruits since January 1912. Tobon claimed ownership, asserting he purchased the lands from Exequiel (Gil) Tacas, brother of plaintiff Aquilina Tacas, around 1905. The trial court found that the lands were part of the estate of Francisco Dumadag, based on a possessory information title (Exhibit H) recorded in 1895 and tax declarations and payments in Dumadag’s name. It declared the plaintiffs as absolute owners and ordered Tobon to deliver the lands and pay the value of fruits collected from 1912 to 1927, totaling P11,040. Tobon appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the identity of the lands in litigation was established.
2. Whether the defendant’s documentary evidence (Exhibits 1 and 2) prevails over the plaintiffs’ possessory information title (Exhibit H).
3. Whether the defendant is liable to return all fruits collected from 1912 to 1927 or only from a specific period.

RULING

1. Identity of the Lands: The Supreme Court held that the identity was sufficiently established, as both the complaint and answer referred to the same lands possessed by Tobon and claimed to have been purchased from Exequiel Tacas.
2. Ownership of the Lands: The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the lands belonged to Francisco Dumadag. Exhibit H (possessory information) was valid and indicated Dumadag’s ownership since at least 1895. Defendant’s Exhibit 1 (alleged deed of sale from 1905) was deemed ineffective, as Exequiel Tacas had no valid title to convey. Exhibit 2 (a 1909 agreement) was contradictory and unreliable, as it suggested an arrangement inconsistent with the already-approved possessory proceeding of 1895. Thus, plaintiffs’ title prevailed.
3. Liability for Fruits: The Court modified the trial court’s award. Tobon was deemed a possessor in good faith until his possession was legally interrupted. Under Article 451 of the Civil Code, a possessor in good faith is entitled to fruits received before legal interruption. Legal interruption occurs upon service of judicial summons or filing of an answer to the complaint. Since the complaint was filed on February 1, 1918, and Tobon filed his answer on April 11, 1918, his good faith ceased in April 1918. Therefore, Tobon was only liable to return fruits received from April 1918 to 1927, with the right to deduct expenses for planting and harvesting under Article 365 of the Civil Code. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the net value of fruits after deducting expenses.

The judgment was affirmed as to ownership and possession but modified as to damages. Costs were imposed on the appellant.