G.R. No. L-8791
December 6, 1915
GABRIEL JUSON and his wife MAXIMA JAVIER, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ANA PONCE IGNACIO and her husband PRUDENCIO BINUYA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
On October 23, 1883, Leoncia Javier died, leaving a will executed on November 27, 1882. In clause 5 of her will, she bequeathed two parcels of land in Balanti, Baliuag, Bulacan, valued at P1,150, to her grandnieces Esperanza, Maxima, and Emilia Javier, daughters of her nephew Alejo Javier, in recognition of services rendered. The executor of her estate, Vicente Tiongson, assigned these lands to the three legatees in a partition on October 3, 1884, with their father Alejo Javier representing them.

On October 6, 1884, Alejo Javier sold the two parcels of land with a right of repurchase to Ana Ponce Ignacio and her husband Tomas Lim-Ungco for P500 via a private document. On April 26, 1886, a new deed of sale under pacto de retro was executed for the same lands, this time in the names of the legatees Esperanza, Maxima, and Emilia Javier, for P1,150, with a repurchase period of ten years. The signatures of the legatees were affixed by representatives: Mateo Talag for Esperanza, Alejo Javier for Maxima, and Primitivo Javier for Emilia. At the time of this second deed, Maxima was about twelve years old, and Emilia was about ten.

Esperanza and Emilia Javier later died; Esperanza died unmarried and without issue, while Emilia left two minor sons, Jose O. Blas and Tirso O. Blas. Maxima Javier, along with Emilia’s sons (represented by their curator ad litem), filed a complaint on August 18, 1911, against Ana Ponce Ignacio and her present husband Prudencio Binuya. They sought to be declared owners of the lands, recovery of possession, and indemnity for fruits obtained from the property amounting to P27,000. The defendants claimed ownership and possession for over thirty years.

The Court of First Instance of Bulacan absolved the defendants, prompting the plaintiffs to appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiffs have a valid cause of action to recover ownership and possession of the two parcels of land from the defendants.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the lower court, absolving the defendants from the complaint.

The Court held that the facts occurred prior to the effectivity of the Civil Code and must be governed by the laws in force at the time, specifically the Partidas. Under the Partidas, the lands bequeathed to Maxima and Emilia Javier constituted adventitious property, where ownership pertained to the children and usufruct and administration to their father, Alejo Javier, by virtue of his paternal authority. The father, as administrator, could not alienate such property unless his own property was mortgaged as security for the sale. If alienation occurred, the children’s remedy was a personal action against their father’s estate to foreclose the mortgage, not a direct action for recovery of ownership against a third-party possessor, unless they proved their father’s estate was insufficient and they expressly renounced their right to his inheritance.

In this case, the plaintiffs did not prove Alejo Javier’s death, nor did they first exhaust their direct action against his estate or renounce their inheritance rights before filing this subsidiary action for recovery against the defendants. Thus, their action was procedurally defective and violated the applicable laws.

Additionally, the Court noted that by the time the complaint was filed (1911), Maxima and Emilia had long been of age and had allowed the prescriptive period for challenging the sale to lapse. Moreover, defendant Ana Ponce Ignacio had been in quiet, adverse, and peaceable possession of the lands for 27 years, which could ripen into ownership by prescription, with the sale serving as a just title for prescription purposes.

Therefore, the plaintiffs’ action was dismissed for lack of merit.