GR L 6752; (April, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6752 April 29, 1955
NAZARIO TRILLANA, petitioner, vs. FAUSTINO MANANSALA, MARIA LOPEZ, MAXIMA MANANSALA and THE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Nazario Trillana filed a revindicatory action in 1950 over a parcel of land in Hagonoy, Bulacan. The defendants, Faustino Manansala et al., claimed ownership through sale and prescription. Both parties traced their claims from the registered owner, Marcos Bernardo. Trillana presented an absolute sale deed (Exhibit A) executed in his favor in June 1948 by Vicenta Bernardo, the daughter and sole heir of Marcos Bernardo. The defendants presented a document (Exhibit 1) dated July 20, 1934, written in Tagalog, which they claimed evidenced their acquisition. The trial court found Exhibit 1 to be a forgery and ruled for Trillana, also holding that prescription did not apply as defendants lacked just title. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the document not falsified and ruling that the defendants’ adverse possession since July 1934, exceeding 15 years, barred Trillana’s 1950 action.
ISSUE
Whether the defendants can acquire ownership of the land through acquisitive prescription based on their possession under the contract (Exhibit 1).
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The document (Exhibit 1), using the words “Isinangla,” “sinangla,” and “matubos,” constituted an antichresis—a mortgage where possession of the property is delivered to the creditor. Under settled jurisprudence, an antichretic creditor cannot ordinarily acquire the land by prescription. The agreement contemplated a redemption (“matubos”) by April 1944. Even if construed as a sale with pacto de retro, prescription would not run during the redemption period (1934-1944). The stipulation that the property would be “paid” to the creditors if not redeemed by that date was interpreted merely as authorizing them to seek foreclosure through proper proceedings, as an automatic transfer would constitute a prohibited pactum commissorium. Since the contract did not divest Marcos Bernardo of ownership, his heir Vicenta Bernardo could validly convey the property to Trillana in 1948, subject to the defendants’ rights as antichretic creditors. The Court ordered the defendants to deliver the lot to Trillana’s successors upon payment of P1,070, with no interest or special damages, as the fruits received by the defendants were considered interest.