Title ALBERTO BARRETTO vs. LEONARDO F. BARRETTO ET AL., .G.R. No. L-11933.

December
1, 1917.
Ponente TORRES, J.:
Doctrine ANTICHRESIS
Facts ● In his complaint of November 11, 1913, filed in the Court of First Instance of Zambales,
Alberto Barretto alleges as his first cause of action that he is the owner of the whole
hacienda called Balintagac, situated in the barrio of the same name, in the municipality of
San Felipe of said province, having an area of about 200 quinones antiguos, and bounded
on the north by the Anonang River; on the south by the Carmen Mountain; on the east by
the corner of Balintagac; and on the west by the Tectec Mountain. That he was in
possession of the said hacienda quietly, peacefully, and continuously, as were his
predecessors since the year 1884 until May, 1912; that on a certain day of the latter month
and year, the defendant Leonardo F. Barretto alleging himself to be the owner of a certain
part of said hacienda illegally and unduly usurped a portion of land of the said hacienda on
the eastern part situated in Ilum-Ilog, Santa Maria and Inubo-grande y pequeño, Santa
Maria and Carupisan, bounded on the north by the Anonang River, on the east by the
Golongoro River and the corner of Balintagac, on the south by the Balintagac and Inbo
mountains, and on the west by the rest of the hacienda which the plaintiff at present holds;
that since that time the defendant had been receiving two-thirds of the fruits which the
usurped portion annually produced, which amounted to 33 uyones and 145 and 33 per cent
cavanes of rice at P8 per uyon and P2 a cavan, and whose value amounts to the sum of
P554; that the defendant refused to return that portion of land usurped together with the
fruits received, or their value, in spite of the fact that he has been required to do so in
writing by the plaintiff.
● That, as a second cause of action, the defendant, on the said month of May, 1912, illegally
took possession of a lot situated in the same hacienda and barrio of Balintagac, bounded on
the front by the provincial road, on its right, left, and rear sides by lands of the hacienda
belonging to the plaintiff, measuring 18 meters in front by 48 meters deep, that is, an area
of 864 square meters, which lot should reasonably produce for its use a monthly rent of P1,
and that in spite of the fact that the plaintiff had requested the defendant to vacate and to
deliver the said lot to him with its rents, he (defendant) refused to return the said lot or pay
the rents therefor, for which reason the plaintiff prayed judgment in his favor ordering the
delivery or restitution of the said portion of land and lot, claimed in his first and second
causes of action, together with the products of rice said to have been received, and those
which in the future may be obtained, or their value, and the sum of P18 for the reasonable
use of the lot since May, 1912, to October, 1913, and the rent that it should produce at the
rate of P1 a month until the actual delivery of the lot shall have been made, with the costs
of the action.
● The fact is uncontroverted and fully proved in the record that Antonio Vicente Barretto as
creditor — not being able to collect his credit of P11,000 and interest at 8 per cent, nor
obtain the adjudication in his favor of half of the hacienda of Balintagac which was
mortgaged for the security of the debt, and there having been no bidders on the three
occasions which it was offered for public auction — took possession, in 1888 or 1889, of
all the hacienda and from that time on received through his administrators the products of
the same for the purpose of collecting his credit and interests, and on the lack of proof to
the contrary it may be established that he took possession of said hacienda by virtue of
voluntary assignment with the express consent of the heirs of the deceased Juan Antonio
Barretto, sr., owner of one-half of the hacienda and of Juan Antonio Barretto Grandpre, jr.,
owner of the other half.

Lower Courts The Court, rendered the decision above mentioned, against which the defendants and the
interveners excepted and asked for a new trial, which was denied and exception was taken to the
ruling by them. The corresponding bill of exceptions having been presented, the same was
approved and forwarded to this court together with the document and transcript of the stenographic
notes and other proceedings which constitute the evidence adduced by the parties in the action.

Appellate Court
Issue Whether the contract between the parties is one of mortgage or of antichresis. 
SC Ruling When in the record of an action it is fully established that the parties indebted in a certain amount,
which is secured with a mortgage over one-half of their hacienda, having delivered to the creditor
not only the mortgaged half but the whole hacienda, not in the nature of an assignment of property
in payment of the debt, still unpaid, but with the object that the creditor may collect by means of
usufruct his credit and the interest agreed upon, the verbal contract which is inferred from such
facts and presumed to have been entered into between the parties, although not set in any
document, deserves in law the name of antichresis as defined in article 1881 of the Civil Code.
The perusal of the following articles, 1882 to 1886, of the Code, shows in a convincing way that
the possession of the hacienda enjoyed by the creditor Antonio Vicente Barretto while living and
later on by his successors up to the present time was conferred to them by virtue of the stated
contract or agreement in antichresis; thus, one of the administrators of the hacienda, Luis Barretto,
was the one who presented the sworn declaration of ownership of the same for the purposes of the
assessment tax and paid the land tax in the name of the creditor who possessed and held the
hacienda in usufruct, as it is duly established in the record.
Although article 1884 of the same Code states that the creditor does not acquire through possession
the ownership of the real property delivered by virtue of an antichresis, for failure to pay the debt
within the stipulated time — any agreement to the contrary being void — nevertheless, the debtor
according to the preceding article 1883 cannot recover the use of the real property given in
antichresis to the creditor, without previously fully paying the creditor, who in case of insolvency
may ask for the sale of the real property which he possesses by virtue of the covenant in
antichresis, unless the pending debt be paid. It appears to be duly proved in the record that in 1912
the defendant Leonardo F. Barretto, by himself and for himself and without the consent of the
present possessor now the plaintiff, took over and usurped a portion of land of the hacienda and a
lot included in it, withholding and refusing to deliver them to the creditor in antichresis on the
pretext that he is the owner of the whole hacienda; and as it does not appear in any way that the
debt, for the payment of which the whole hacienda of Balintagac was delivered in antichresis, has
been paid, it is doubtless that the defendant Leonardo F. Barretto, when he effected the usurpation,
acted without just reason and in contravention of the provisions of the said article 1883 of the Civil
Code. It is known that the action to recover a thing, where a legitimate possessor has been deprived
of his possession, takes place in accordance with the law, even against the owner himself, who
wrested the possession, since the despoiler can never be protected by the law even on his right of
ownership, without first restoring what he acquired through his authority by an illegal act of
dispossession.

It is to be inferred from the facts and the foregoing statements that though the plaintiff Alberto
Barretto has no title of ownership over the hacienda of Balintagac, and therefore, he can not be
declared owner of the same, nevertheless, his claim that a judgment be rendered ordering the return
to him of the portion usurped by the defendant Leonardo F. Barretto which refers to the first cause
of action of his complaint, as well as the lot described in the o cause of action of the same, which is
withheld by said defendant, is in conformity with the law and is in accordance with the merits of
the present action. The plaintiff being in the legitimate possession and use of all the hacienda of
Balintagac which was voluntarily delivered to him by Juan Antonio Barretto Grandpre, jr., and his
coheirs as the successors of the deceased Juan Antonio Barretto, sr., with the object that the
creditor Antonio Vicente Barretto might collect the capital and interests which they owed and still
owe him — a lawful contractual act called by law a covenant or agreement in antichresis — the
debtors, or any of them, can under no circumstances while the debt exists and is not fully paid,
recover or reacquire, as the mentioned article 1883 provides, the possession and use of the real
property delivered to the creditor, without the latter giving his consent; consequently, the defendant
Leonardo F. Barretto without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff Alberto Barretto who
succeeded by singular title in the possession and use of the hacienda in question, could not have
recovered by usurpation the possession and use of a portion of the same.