Muyco vs. Montilla

A possessor who fails to assert his right within one year of another's judicial acquisition of possession loses both de facto and de jure possession, and his only remaining remedy is an action to recover title, not a plenary action for possession.

The hacienda of Ayungon, consisting of 94 hectares, 21 ares, and 57 centares, was formerly owned by Crispin Catalego, now deceased, and was mortgaged to Teofilo Planta, now deceased, to secure a debt. After Catalego's death, the guardians of Planta's minor children sued the debtor's widow and daughter to recover the indebtedness, obtaining a final judgment on May 8, 1903, which ordered the sale of the mortgaged land at public auction in default of payment. The five parcels of land in dispute were included within the boundaries of the hacienda.

The hacienda of Ayungon, consisting of 94 hectares, 21 ares, and 57 centares, was formerly owned by Crispin Catalego, now deceased, and included the five parcels of land in dispute. Catalego mortgaged the hacienda to Teofilo Planta, now deceased, to secure a debt. After Catalego's death, the guardians of Planta's minor children brought an action against the widow and daughter of the debtor, the latter represented by her husband Jose Bellido, to recover the amount of the indebtedness. On May 8, 1903, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment condemning the defendants to pay 2,489.76 pesos plus 426.59 pesos interest, and ordering that in default of payment the land be sold at public auction; the judgment became final, no appeal having been taken.

On July 14, 1903, demand was made upon Bernabela Jaducon for payment, and upon her failure to pay, the deputy sheriff went to the barrio of Ayungon and levied upon the land, appointing Pedro Jaboneta as receiver. Notice of the sale was published in the newspaper "La Igualdad" on July 16, 1903, and the sale took place on August 7, 1903, at which the hacienda was sold to attorney Dionisio Mapa for 3,300 pesos. Mapa immediately transferred the property to Pascual Infante for the same price, and the sheriff gave possession to Infante on August 14, 1903. Bernabela Jaducon assigned her right to redeem six-tenths of the hacienda to Pedro Montilla, and the sheriff gave possession of that portion to Montilla on August 17, 1903, with Infante remaining in possession of the other four-tenths.

Throughout these proceedings, from the levy on July 14 to the delivery of possession on August 17, 1903, Juan Muyco made no opposition or objection, despite being duly notified by his own tenants. According to Jose Bellido's testimony, after Bellido wrote Muyco a letter notifying him of the levy, Muyco told him he would not take any action because the expenses would be greater than the value of the land in controversy.

On August 29, 1904, one year after the sale, when the right to redeem had become barred by the statute of limitations, Muyco brought an action for forcible entry and detainer in the justice of the peace court. On December 23, 1904, he filed the present plenary action for possession against Pedro Montilla, Pascual Infante, Francisco Infante, and others, alleging that he was in quiet, peaceable, and adverse possession of the five tracts and was wrongfully deprived of them on July 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, and August 4, 1904, when the defendants plowed and sowed the land, prohibiting him from any use, and claiming 2,500 pesos in damages.

The trial court found for the plaintiff and rendered judgment on March 8, 1905, ordering the defendants to return possession and pay damages. The defendants appealed, and the Supreme Court found the lower court's findings plainly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence, the record having shown that the sheriff gave possession to the purchasers in the manner and form prescribed by law.

• Wrongful Deprivation: Muyco alleged that he was in quiet, peaceable, and adverse possession of the five tracts and was wrongfully deprived of them by the defendants' acts of plowing and sowing, which prohibited him from any use of the land, and claimed 2,500 pesos in damages.
• Acts of Spoliation: Muyco characterized the sheriff's levy, sale, and delivery of possession as acts of spoliation, and claimed the right to bring an action against the sheriff and the purchasers, reserving any criminal action arising from the alleged acts of violence.

• Judicial Sale: The defendants alleged that the five parcels were an integral part of the hacienda mortgaged to Planta, that the land was sold at public auction pursuant to a final judgment, and that Muyco, with knowledge of the sale, did not intervene or object.
• Ownership Acts: The defendants denied all allegations of spoliation and alleged that their acts were those of owners upon their own property, and that Muyco's contracts relating to ownership were executed subsequent to the 1899 mortgage.

• Wrongful Deprivation: Whether Muyco was wrongfully deprived of possession by the defendants' acts of plowing and sowing the disputed parcels.
• Loss of Possession: Whether Muyco lost his right to possession by reason of the defendants' judicial possession having lasted more than one year.
• Proper Remedy: Whether Muyco's proper remedy was a plenary action for possession or an action to recover title.

• Wrongful Deprivation: No. The defendants acquired judicial possession through the sheriff's delivery pursuant to a court order, and their acts were those of owners upon their own property, not acts of spoliation.
• Loss of Possession: Yes. Under Article 460(4) of the Civil Code, possession is lost when another possesses for more than one year even against the former possessor's will; Muyco lost both de facto and de jure possession.
• Proper Remedy: No. Muyco's only remaining remedy was an action to recover title; his proper course was under section 442 of Act No. 190, not a plenary action for possession.

• Wrongful Deprivation: The sheriff's delivery of possession to the assignees of the original purchaser, in compliance with the court's order, constituted the "proper legal steps and formalities" for acquiring possession under Article 438 of the Civil Code. The sheriff's acts, being those of an officer enforcing judicial processes, must be presumed to have been in accordance with procedural law and must be respected until set aside by a judicial decision; no evidence showed the acts were abusive, illegal, or defective. Since the defendants took possession under a court order on August 14 and 17, 1903, and there was no evidence they abandoned or lost that possession, they are presumed to have been in possession during July and August 1904, when the alleged wrongful occupation took place. Their acts of objecting to Muyco's cultivation were acts of an owner upon his property, and Muyco's gathering of part of the crop did not affect the defendants' rights, Article 452 of the Civil Code having granted him that privilege.

• Loss of Possession: Under Article 460(4) of the Civil Code, a possessor loses his possession by the possession of another, even against the former possessor's will, if the new possession lasted more than one year. Muyco, after Infante and Montilla obtained judicial possession in due form, and more than a year having elapsed, lost his right to possession of the parcels — not only the mere possession de facto but also the possession de jure. His silence and negligence during the entire execution proceedings, despite due notice, barred him from securing the aid of the courts to protect his rights.

• Proper Remedy: Muyco, being a stranger to the action between the Planta minors and the debtors, had no right to bring an action against the sheriff claiming acts of spoliation. His remedy was that provided in section 442 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in connection with section 451, relating to the execution or enforcement of judgments. Instead of applying to the sheriff or filing a petition in intervention, he elected to bring an action to recover possession. The lower court's findings were plainly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence, and the action should have been dismissed.

• Acquisition of possession by proper legal steps and formalities — Under Article 438 of the Civil Code, possession may be acquired by physical occupation, by subjection to the possessor's will, or by the proper legal steps and formalities established for acquiring such rights. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the sheriff's delivery of possession to the purchasers, in compliance with a court order, validly transferred possession to them.
• Loss of possession by another's possession exceeding one year — Under Article 460(4) of the Civil Code, a possessor loses his possession by the possession of another, even against the former possessor's will, if the new possession lasted more than one year. The Court applied this in holding that Muyco, having failed to assert his claim within one year of the defendants' judicial acquisition of possession, lost both de facto and de jure possession, leaving only an action to recover title.
• Presumption of regularity of judicial proceedings and sheriff's acts — The acts of the sheriff, as the officer in charge of enforcing judicial processes, must be presumed to have been in accordance with procedural law and must be respected until set aside by a judicial decision. The Court applied this in rejecting Muyco's characterization of the sheriff's acts as spoliation, there being no proof of abuse, illegality, or defect.
• Remedy for third-party claims in execution — Under section 442 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure), a person claiming an interest in property levied upon in execution must apply to the sheriff or file a petition in intervention. The Court applied this in holding that Muyco, a stranger to the action, should have pursued this remedy rather than a plenary action for possession.

• "The possession given by the sheriff to the assignees of the original purchaser of the hacienda of Ayungon, in compliance with the order made by the court in an action brought against the former owners of the said hacienda, constituted the proper legal steps and formalities referred to in the above-quoted article as one of the means of acquiring possession." — This passage applies Article 438 of the Civil Code to hold that the sheriff's delivery of possession validly transferred possession to the purchasers.
• "It is to be inferred from the express provision of the above-quoted article that Juan Muyco, after Infante and Montilla had obtained judicial possession in due form of the land of the hacienda of Ayungon, more than a year having elapsed, lost his right to the possession of the parcels of land which he claims belong to him and which were alleged to be included within the boundaries of the said hacienda he having lost not only the mere possession de facto but also the possession de jure, and the only action that he can now maintain is an action to recover title." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: the one-year rule of Article 460(4) bars a plenary action for possession, leaving only an action to recover title.
• "His remedy was that provided for in section 442 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in connection with section 451 of the same code, relating to the execution or enforcement of the judgment and proceedings thereunder." — This passage identifies the proper remedy for a third party claiming an interest in property sold in execution.

• Article 438, Civil Code — Provides that possession is acquired by physical occupation, by subjection to the possessor's will, or by the proper legal steps and formalities established for acquiring such rights. The Court applied this in holding that the sheriff's delivery of possession to the purchasers constituted valid acquisition of possession.
• Article 460(4), Civil Code — Provides that a possessor loses his possession by the possession of another, even against the former possessor's will, if the new possession lasted more than one year. The Court applied this in holding that Muyco lost both de facto and de jure possession.
• Article 452, Civil Code — Grants the possessor the privilege of gathering crops. The Court applied this in holding that Muyco's gathering of part of the crop did not affect the defendants' rights.
• Section 442, Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure) — Provides the remedy for third parties claiming an interest in property levied upon in execution. The Court applied this in holding that Muyco should have applied to the sheriff or filed a petition in intervention.
• Section 451, Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure) — Relates to the execution or enforcement of judgments and proceedings thereunder. The Court cited this in connection with section 442 as the proper remedy.

Arellano, C.J., and Johnson, J., concurred; Willard and Tracey, JJ., concurred in the result.

• Carson, J., dissenting — The trial court found that it was not proven that the sheriff gave possession of the land in question as alleged, and this finding was not plainly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence.