FACTS:

Atanasio Pandaquilla sold a rice field under pacto de retro to Wenceslao Tabia. On June 30, 1906, Pandaquilla repurchased the land from Tabia for P340. However, on the same day, Miguel Gaza, Felix Gaza, and Eusebio de Austria (sons and son-in-law of Pandaquilla’s sister Fernanda) usurped the land, claiming that Tabia had delivered it to them for cultivation.

Pandaquilla filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of La Laguna for possession of the land and damages, alleging that the defendants’ actions prevented him from cultivating the land, causing him to lose the crop. The defendants (Gaza, Gaza, Austria) denied the allegations, asserting that the land was communal property belonging pro indiviso to Atanasio Pandaquilla, Fernanda Pandaquilla, and Francisca Pandaquilla (Atanasio’s sisters). They claimed to be in possession merely as associates and representatives of Fernanda and Francisca. Wenceslao Tabia, the initial purchaser a retro, stated he had no real interest in the controversy.

The trial court ruled in favor of Pandaquilla, ordering the defendants to deliver the land, pay 95 cavanes of rice or its value, and costs. The defendants appealed.

ISSUE:

Whether Atanasio Pandaquilla, as the sole repurchasing vendor, is entitled to the possession of the land against the defendants who claim rights through his sisters (alleged co-owners), despite the repurchase being solely undertaken by Pandaquilla.

RULING:

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the lower court, with the modification that the award of 95 cavanes of rice or its value was removed due to insufficient evidence.

The Court held that Atanasio Pandaquilla was the sole party in the pacto de retro sale and subsequent repurchase with Wenceslao Tabia. Upon Pandaquilla’s redemption, Tabia was obligated to deliver the repurchased land directly to him. Tabia’s act of delivering the land to the defendants (Miguel Gaza, Felix Gaza, and Eusebio de Austria) was a violation of his obligation.

The Court emphasized that whatever hereditary rights Pandaquilla’s sisters (Fernanda and Francisca) might have in the land, those rights could be enforced against Pandaquilla as a co-heir/co-owner, but they could not prevent Tabia from fulfilling his obligation to deliver the redeemed land to the vendor, Atanasio Pandaquilla. The defendants, as sons and son-in-law of one sister, have no direct right to possess the land, especially while the sisters are still living. Their retention of the land, in connivance with Tabia, made them “mere usurpers and unlawful detainers.”

Citing Article 1510 of the Civil Code, the Court stated that a vendor may bring an action against any possessor whose rights derive from the vendee. This principle applies even more strongly against those who occupy the land through illegal actions by the initial vendee (Tabia) after the redemption. The defendants did not show any duly recorded rights in the registry of property.

Therefore, Pandaquilla, having fulfilled his obligation by paying the redemption price, was rightfully entitled to possession of the redeemed property.

G.R. No. L-4737, ATANASIO PANDAQUILA vs. MIGUEL GAZA, ET AL., February 10, 1909.