G.R. No.

L-50264 October 21, 1991

IGNACIO WONG, petitioner,
vs.
HON. LUCAS D. CARPIO, as Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Davao del
Sur, Branch V and MANUEL MERCADO, respondents.

Facts:
Manuel Mercado acquired his rights to possess the land in litigation from William
Giger by virtue of a deed of sale with right to repurchase which was executed in 1972
for a consideration of P3,500.00.
In 1972, Mercado began harvesting only the coconut fruits and he paid the taxes on
the land for Mr. Giger. He went periodically to the land to make copra but he never
placed any person on the land in litigation to watch it. Neither did he reside on the
land. Neither did he put any sign or hut to show that he is in actual possession.
in 1973, William Giger again asked an additional amount of P2,500.00 from Mercado
and so he required William Giger to sign a new deed of Pacto de Retro Sale on
November 5,1973 at Davao City before Notary Public Gregorio C. Batiller.
Before July, 1976, Ignacio Wong went to the land in litigation to find out if there were
other people residing there or claiming it besides the owner and he found none. So,
in July, 1976, Ignacio Wong bought the parcel of land in litigation from William Giger
and his wife Cecilia Valenzuela.
Wong placed laborers on the land in suit, built a small farm house after making some
clearings and fenced the boundaries. He also placed signboards.
September 27, 1976, plaintiff Manuel Mercado again went to the land in suit to make
copras. That was the time the matter was brought to the attention of the police of
Sta. Maria, Davao del Sur and the incident entered in the police blotter.
November 18, 1976, defendant Wong ordered the hooking of the coconuts from the
land in litigation and nobody disturbed him.
November 29, 1976, Wong received a copy of Mercado's complaint for forcible entry
with summons to answer which is the case now before the Court. During the
pendency of this instant complaint for forcible entry, spouses William Giger and
Cecilia Valenzuela filed a case for reformation of instrument with the Court of First
Instance of Digos, Davao del Sur against Mercado
Issue:
Who was in possession as a fact?
Ruling: MERCADO!
Ratio:
Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different
personalities except in the cases of co-possession. Should a question arise regarding the fact
of possession, the present possessor shall be preferred; if there are two possessions, the one
longer in possession, if the dates of possession are the same, the one who presents a title;
and if these conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending
determination of its possession or ownership through proper proceedings (Art. 538, Civil
Code).

Possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right,

or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal
formalities for acquiring such right."; and that the execution of a sale thru a public
instrument shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing, unless there is stipulation to the
contrary . . . . If, however, notwithstanding the execution of the instrument, the purchaser
cannot have the enjoyment and material tenancy of the thing and make use of it herself,
because such tenancy and enjoyment are opposed by another, then delivery has not been
effected.
Applying the above pronouncements on the instant case, it is clear that possession
passed from vendor William Giger to private respondent Manuel Mercado by virtue of the
first sale a retro, and accordingly, the later sale a retro in favor of petitioner failed to pass
the possession of the property because there is an impediment the possession exercised
by private respondent.