Tacas vs. Tobon

A possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits of the property until his possession is legally interrupted by service of judicial summons or by the filing of an answer to the complaint; thereafter, he must return the fruits received, but may deduct the expenses of planting and harvesting. The interruption of possession for purposes of Article 451 of the Civil Code occurs when the possessor becomes aware that his right is being disputed through the formal initiation of an action against him, not merely from the time of final judgment.

Francisco Dumadag possessed three parcels of land in the sitio of Sisin, Magsingal, Ilocos Sur, as owner under a possessory information approved on March 22, 1895 and inscribed in the registry of deeds in 1917. He cultivated the land, paid the taxes, and enjoyed its fruits until his death on November 17, 1911. In January 1912, Evaristo Tobon entered the parcels, planted tobacco, and thereafter remained in possession, claiming to have purchased the land from one Exequiel or Gil Tacas in 1905. The plaintiffs, as heirs of Dumadag, sued to recover the land and the fruits from 1912 onward.

• The Land and Title: The three parcels were part of an estate belonging to Francisco Dumadag, evidenced by a possessory information (Exhibit H) approved on March 22, 1895 and inscribed in the registry of deeds of Ilocos Sur. Dumadag inherited the land from his parents, possessed it as owner for many years, enjoyed its fruits consisting of rice, corn, tobacco, and vegetables, declared it for tax purposes in his name, and paid the land tax during the years 1908 to 1914.

• Defendant’s Entry and Claim of Purchase: Upon Dumadag’s death on November 17, 1911, Evaristo Tobon took possession in January 1912 and planted tobacco. He asserted ownership by virtue of a deed of sale (Exhibit 1) dated January 17, 1905, in which Exequiel or Gil Tacas sold him the three parcels for P300. A second instrument (Exhibit 2) dated May 15, 1909, purportedly showed that Dumadag and Gil Tacas agreed that Tacas’s parcels would be included in Dumadag’s possessory proceedings. The trial court, after comparing the signature of the ratifying justice of the peace on Exhibit 1 with his acknowledged signatures on Exhibit 2, found Exhibit 1 to be false.

• Fruits Collected: From 1912 to 1927, Tobon collected 300 sheaves of rice and 300 manos of tobacco annually. The trial court valued the rice at P0.30 per sheaf and the tobacco at a uniform rate of P2 per mano, arriving at a total value of P11,040.

• Identity of the Lands: Appellant contended that the identity of the three parcels in litigation had not been sufficiently established.

• Ownership and Validity of the Sale: Appellant maintained that he was the owner, having purchased the lands from Exequiel or Gil Tacas in 1905, as evidenced by Exhibit 1.

• Fruits: Appellant argued that the trial court erred in ordering him to deliver the fruits from 1912 to 1927, or to pay their value of P11,040, asserting that as a possessor he was entitled to the fruits at least until the institution of the suit.

• Ownership by Succession: Plaintiffs alleged that the lands belonged to their predecessor Francisco Dumadag by virtue of the possessory information, and that they inherited the property upon his death.

• Invalidity of Defendant’s Title: Plaintiffs argued that Exhibit 1 was false and that, in any event, Gil Tacas could not validly transfer lands that were already owned and possessed by Dumadag. They also pointed out the contradiction in Exhibit 2, which sought to include Tacas’s parcels in Dumadag’s possessory proceedings years after those proceedings had been approved.

• Liability for Fruits: Plaintiffs sought the return of the fruits collected by Tobon from the time he unlawfully took possession in January 1912.

• Identity of the Lands: Whether the identity of the three parcels in litigation was established with sufficient certainty.

• Ownership: Whether the defendant acquired valid title through the 1905 sale from Gil Tacas, or whether the plaintiffs’ predecessor’s possessory information title prevailed.

• Liability for Fruits: From what date the defendant, as possessor, must account for the fruits of the land.

• Identity of the Lands: The contention was without merit. The allegations in the complaint and the answer described the very lands held by defendant, which he claimed to have purchased from Gil Tacas; the identity of the parcels was thus sufficiently established by the pleadings and evidence.

• Ownership: The trial court’s finding that the lands belonged to Francisco Dumadag under the 1895 possessory information was affirmed. Even if Exhibit 1 were genuine, Gil Tacas could not validly convey lands already owned and possessed by Dumadag. Exhibit 2, which purported to show a 1909 agreement to include Tacas’s parcels in Dumadag’s possessory proceedings, contradicted the fact that those proceedings had already been approved in 1895. Dumadag did not sign the document and no one identified it; in any event, the alleged sale in 1905 was not acted upon by Tobon by taking possession until after Dumadag’s death. Thus, the plaintiffs’ title prevailed.

• Liability for Fruits: The defendant was deemed a possessor in good faith because there was no evidence that he knew of any flaw in his title when he entered the land. Under Article 433 and Article 451 of the Civil Code, a possessor in good faith acquires ownership of the fruits received before his possession is legally interrupted. Legal interruption occurs upon service of the summons or the filing of the answer. Here, the complaint was filed on February 1, 1918, and the answer was docketed on April 11, 1918. Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to the fruits up to that point; thereafter, he was obliged to return the fruits. The award was modified to cover only the fruits from April 1918 to 1927, with the right to deduct the expenses of planting and harvesting under Article 365 of the Civil Code, the amount of which was to be determined by the trial court.

• Possessor in Good Faith and Fruits — A possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits of the property received before his possession is legally interrupted. Legal interruption occurs when the possessor is served with judicial summons or files an answer to the complaint, because at that moment he becomes aware that his right is disputed. From that time, he ceases to receive the fruits for his own benefit and must return them upon the final judgment, but he may deduct the expenses incurred for planting and harvesting. The rule is drawn from a combined reading of Articles 433, 451, and 1945 of the Civil Code and the commentary of Manresa.

• “Evidence being lacking to show that when he entered upon the possession of the lands in question, he was aware of any flaw in his title or mode of acquiring it, he is deemed a possessor in good faith (article 433, Civil Code), and in accordance with article 451 of the Civil Code, the fruits of said lands were his, until he was summoned upon the complaint, or until he has filed his answer thereto.”

• From Manresa’s commentaries, quoted by the Court: “when the final judgment of the court deprives him of the possession, all illusion necessarily disappears. Although he may not have been convinced of it before, the possessor becomes aware that his possession is unlawful from the time he learns of the complaint, from the time he is summoned to the trial. It is at this time that his possession is interrupted, according to article 1945, and that he ceases to receive the fruits, according to the first paragraph of article 451.”

• Saul vs. Hawkins, 1 Phil. 275; Javier vs. Javier, 6 Phil. 493; Cleto vs. Salvador, 11 Phil. 416; Valencia vs. Jimenez and Fuster, 11 Phil. 492; Araujo vs. Celis, 16 Phil. 329; Alcala and Alviedo vs. Hernandez and Pacleb, 32 Phil. 628; Tolentino vs. Vitug, 39 Phil. 126; Aquino vs. Tañedo, 39 Phil. 517; Rivera vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 40 Phil. 717; Velasquez vs. Teodoro, 46 Phil. 757 — These cases uniformly applied the rule that the fruits of the property belong to the possessor in good faith until his possession is legally interrupted by service of summons or the filing of an answer, and were followed as controlling authority on the point.

• Article 433, Civil Code (old) — Presumption of good faith possession. Applied to treat the defendant as a possessor in good faith because no evidence showed he was aware of any defect in his title upon entry.

• Article 451, Civil Code (old) — Fruits received by a possessor in good faith before legal interruption of possession become his own. Applied to award the defendant the fruits up to the moment of legal interruption, i.e., the filing of the answer.

• Article 1945, Civil Code (old) — Interruption of possession for purposes of prescription and other effects. Applied to fix the time when good faith ceased and the obligation to return fruits commenced.

• Article 365, Civil Code (old) — Right to reimbursement for necessary or useful expenses. Applied to allow the defendant to deduct the expenses of planting and harvesting from the fruits to be returned.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concurred.