G.R. No. L-2058

FACTS:
Plaintiff-appellee Jose Mas, as administrator of the estate of Francisca Hilario, filed an action for recovery of possession of a parcel of land. He presented as evidence a written agreement dated July 4, 1882, wherein defendants-appellants Timoteo Lanuza and Andrea Flores acknowledged Francisca Hilario’s ownership and were permitted to occupy the lot at her will. Plaintiff also submitted a transcript from a criminal case where Lanuza, under oath in 1900, admitted Hilario’s ownership and his negotiations to purchase the lot. Defendants admitted the agreement but claimed they later discovered Hilario was merely an administratrix for the true owner, Joaquin Lao-Jico. They alleged Lao-Jico executed an agreement in 1892 to sell them the property for ₱500, which was never consummated due to his death. The trial court refused to admit defendants’ documentary evidence supporting this claim and rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the lot property of the estate and ordering its possession delivered to the plaintiff.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit defendants’ documentary evidence and in declaring the lot as property of the estate of Francisca Hilario.

RULING:
The trial court correctly refused to admit defendants’ documentary evidence. Even assuming the documents were genuine, the alleged 1892 agreement with Lao-Jico was merely a promise to sell (a contract to sell), which did not transfer ownership under Article 1451 of the Civil Code. It only granted a personal right to demand fulfillment, contingent on Lao-Jico’s actual ownership. Consequently, the only competent evidence before the court was the 1882 agreement, wherein defendants expressly acknowledged Hilario’s title and occupied the lot by her permission. The plaintiff, as administrator, was therefore entitled to possession under the terms of that agreement. However, the plaintiff failed to affirmatively establish title to the property. The portion of the trial court’s judgment declaring the lot as property of the estate was reversed. No prescriptive title could be acquired by defendants because their possession originated from and continued under Hilario’s express permission, as acknowledged by Lanuza in 1900, which interrupts prescription under Article 447 of the Civil Code. The judgment was modified to declare that neither party had proven ownership, but that the plaintiff-administrator was entitled to possession. The modified judgment was affirmed.