G.R. No. L-5899; February 12, 1913
AGUSTIN ALDEA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. INOCENTES FUENTES, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Agustin Aldea filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against Inocentes Fuentes. Aldea claimed ownership over two parcels of land in Mambusao by virtue of a sale executed by Juana de la Peña on May 24, 1905. He alleged that Fuentes despoiled him of possession in February 1907. Fuentes denied the allegations and asserted that he had been in possession since 1901 of a portion of the land (with an area of “2 cavanes and 10 gantas of seed rice”) by virtue of an antichresis contract with Juana de la Peña dated July 23, 1900, executed as security for a debt. The trial court absolved Fuentes, finding that Aldea failed to prove his prior possession and the alleged despoliation, while Fuentes proved his prior and continuous possession since 1901, including payment of land taxes.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiff-appellant, Agustin Aldea, has a better right to possess the land in dispute than the defendant-appellee, Inocentes Fuentes.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Court held that Aldea failed to prove his prior possession and the alleged act of despoliation. On the other hand, Fuentes satisfactorily proved his prior, continuous, and legitimate possession of the land since 1901 under an antichresis contract, which predated Aldea’s deed of sale from 1905. Applying Article 445 of the Civil Code, the actual and oldest possessor (Fuentes) is preferred. Furthermore, the vendor, Juana de la Peña, could not have validly sold the land to Aldea in 1905 as she was no longer in possession, having previously encumbered it to Fuentes, and could not reacquire it without first paying her debt.