G.R. No. 984 : June 23, 1905

FACTS:
This is an action for the recovery of possession (accion publiciana) of a parcel of land, not involving title. The trial court found the following facts:
1. On September 1, 1887, Narciso Bermejo sold the land in question via a public document to the plaintiff, Isidora Bermejo, and her husband, Palmo Davidas (since deceased). The grantees immediately took possession.
2. Subsequently, the plaintiff and her husband entered into a verbal agreement with the defendant, Magdaleno Dorado, and his wife, Alejandra Bermejo (since deceased). Under this agreement, the plaintiff and her husband transferred possession of the land and some carabaos to the defendant and his wife. The transfer was for the purpose of allowing the defendant and his wife to support themselves from the land’s products, with the obligation to return the property whenever the plaintiff and her husband needed it. The defendant and his wife entered possession under these terms.
3. The defendant, in defense of his possession, presented two documents:
A private document from Victoriano Bermejo and his brothers, executed two years after the plaintiff’s deed, purporting to convey the same land to the defendant’s wife, claiming inheritance from their mother, Clotilde Base. The court found no evidence that these grantors or Clotilde Base ever possessed or had any interest in the land.
A public document from Rafaela Posadas (mother of the defendant’s deceased wife) executed in 1898, purporting to convey land to the defendant, deriving title from her daughter. The court found the defendant’s wife’s only right was the temporary possessory right under the verbal agreement with the plaintiff. Furthermore, Rafaela Posadas testified at trial that she never executed such a document.

ISSUE:
Whether the facts stated in the trial court’s decision and those admitted by the pleadings are sufficient to sustain the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Isidora Bermejo, for the recovery of possession of the land.

RULING:
Yes, the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court held that the facts found by the trial court amply support the plaintiff’s right to recover possession. The plaintiff established her prior possession derived from a valid deed of sale, which the court found had been duly recorded. The defendant’s possession was shown to be merely permissive, arising from a precarium (a gratuitous loan for use terminable at the will of the lender). This possessory right terminated, at the latest, when the plaintiff filed the suit to recover the land.

The Court addressed and rejected the defendant’s arguments:
1. On the Defendant’s Documentary Evidence: The documents presented by the defendant failed to establish a superior right of possession. The first was based on grantors with no proven interest, and the second could not convey more than the temporary right which had already ended.
2. On the Application of the Mortgage Law: The defendant’s claim that the plaintiff’s deed should not prejudice him as a “third person” under the Mortgage Law was unavailing, as the trial court found as a fact that the deed was duly recorded. This finding of fact was binding on the Supreme Court due to the absence of a motion for a new trial.
3. On Variance in Land Description: Any discrepancy between the description in the plaintiff’s deed and the defendant’s later deed only weakened the defendant’s position, as it indicated he failed to prove he possessed the specific land claimed by the plaintiff under his alleged title.

The judgment of the lower court ordering the restitution of possession to the plaintiff was affirmed. Costs were taxed against the appellant.