G.R. No. L-9232; November 20, 1914

FACTS:
Ildefonso Tambunting filed an action for recovery of possession and ownership of a parcel of land with improvements located on Calle Benavides, Manila. He alleged that he acquired absolute ownership of the property from Andres de Guzman through a sale with a right of repurchase (pacto de retro) executed on March 29, 1895. The conventional redemption period of one year lapsed without repurchase, consolidating Tambunting’s title. Andres de Guzman remained on the property as a lessee, paying a monthly rent of P3, until his death around 1901. After his death, his relatives (the defendants) occupied the property, claiming co-ownership as heirs of Antonino de Guzman and Gregoria de la Cruz, and refused to pay rent or vacate. Tambunting initially filed an ejectment case in 1907, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. He then filed the present suit in 1912. The defendants claimed the property belonged to the estate of their ascendants and that Andres de Guzman had merely mortgaged his undivided share as security for a loan, which they offered to redeem.

ISSUE:
Whether the plaintiff, Ildefonso Tambunting, has a superior right of ownership and possession over the property in question as against the defendants who claim to be co-owners.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court in favor of the plaintiff, Ildefonso Tambunting.

The Court held that Tambunting validly acquired ownership of the property through the pacto de retro sale. The one-year redemption period expired on March 30, 1896, without Andres de Guzman exercising his right of repurchase, thereby consolidating Tambunting’s absolute title. The subsequent lease agreement wherein Guzman remained as a tenant further confirmed Tambunting’s ownership.

The defendants failed to substantiate their claim of co-ownership. The only evidence presented to support Andres de Guzman’s ownershipand by extension his capacity to sellwas the possessory information title he obtained in 1895, which stated he inherited the land from his father and built the house thereon. This document was approved by the court and recorded. In contrast, the defendants presented no credible evidence to prove that the property formed part of the estate of Antonino de Guzman and Gregoria de la Cruz held in common by all heirs. Their claim of an offer to redeem the alleged mortgage was also unproven.

Furthermore, the appeal was procedurally defective. The appellants failed to have the stenographic notes of the trial testimony transcribed into Spanish or English before submitting the record on appeal. These untranscribed notes were unintelligible and thus could not be reviewed. Consequently, the Supreme Court was compelled to accept the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court as correct.

Given these findings, the Court deemed it unnecessary to pass upon the alternative claim of acquisitive prescription raised by the appellee. The defendants were ordered to restore possession of the property to Tambunting and to pay the accrued rentals.