G.R. No. L-11045; July 28, 1916
ILDEFONSO TOLENTINO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. TOMAS PARAISO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Ildefonso Tolentino filed an action to recover ownership and possession of a parcel of land in Macabaclay, Bongabong, Nueva Ecija, with a capacity of one and one-half cavanes of seed. He claimed ownership by inheritance from his father, Simeon Tolentino, through an extrajudicial partition agreement (Exhibit A) dated July 15, 1909. He alleged that since 1910, the defendant, Tomas Paraiso, had illegally appropriated and cultivated the land.

Tomas Paraiso defended his possession by virtue of a notarial deed of absolute sale (Exhibit 1) dated April 21, 1911, executed by Miguela Tolentino, Ildefonso’s aunt. The deed described the sold land as having an area of about 12 hectares, bounded on the north by lands of the State. Miguela Tolentino testified that she only intended to sell her inherited parcel of six cavanes of seed (approximately 6.0372 hectares), as specified in her father Canuto Tolentino’s will (Exhibit B), and that she did not include Ildefonso’s adjoining land. She claimed she could not read Spanish and was unaware the deed stated 12 hectares. Witnesses corroborated that the boundaries measured during the sale did not include Ildefonso’s land.

The trial court declared the sale null and void as to the disputed portion, recognized Ildefonso as the owner, and ordered Paraiso to return the land and pay indemnity for lost fruits. Paraiso appealed.

ISSUE:
Who is the true owner of the disputed parcel of land with a capacity of one and one-half cavanes?

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, ruling in favor of plaintiff Ildefonso Tolentino.

The Court held that Miguela Tolentino only owned and could validly sell the six-cavan parcel she inherited from her father, as evidenced by his will. The deed of sale, which described the property as 12 hectares, could not transfer ownership of Ildefonso’s adjoining land, as Miguela had no ownership rights over it. Under Article 609 of the Civil Code, ownership is transferred by law, succession, or contract, and Miguela, not being the owner, could not dispose of Ildefonso’s property.

The Court found that the defendant, Tomas Paraiso, knowing from the will that Miguela only inherited six cavanes, acted in bad faith by preparing a deed stating a larger area (12 hectares) and subsequently usurping Ildefonso’s land under that pretext. The contract of sale was valid only for the object certainMiguela’s six-cavan parceland could not affect the separate property of Ildefonso.

Therefore, Ildefonso Tolentino, as the rightful owner by inheritance, was entitled to recover possession of the land and receive indemnity for its fruits. The appealed judgment was affirmed.