GALLAR v. HUSAIN

If the action is brought by the one who is in possession of the land, the action is imprescriptible; otherwise, it could prescribe.

FACTS:

Husains in this case are the heirs of Teodoro Husain. Teodoro Husain sold the land under dispute for 30 pesos to Serapio Chichirita with the right to repurchase within 6 years. Teodoro transferred his right to his sister, Graciana Husain. Graciana paid the redemption price and later sold the land to Elias Gallar for a cattle. Possession of the land, together with the owner's duplicate of the certificate of title of Teodoro Husain, was delivered on the same occasion to Gallar, who since then has been in possession of the land. A couple of years after, Gallar filed this suit in the Court of Instance of Iloilo on October 10, 1960 to compel Hermenegilda and Bonifacio Husain, as heirs of Teodoro Husain, to execute a deed of conveyance in his favor so that he could get a transfer certificate of title. He also asked for damages. The Husains countered by saying that Graciana already paid the redemption price thus their father had already reacquired ownership over the same. They also claim that the action of Elias has already PRESCRIBED.

ISSUE:

1) Whether or not ownership was transferred to Gallar?
2) Whether or not the action has already prescribed?

RULING:

1) YES, ownership has been transferred to Gallar. The right of repurchase may be exercised only by the vendor in whom the right is recognized by contract or by any person to whom the right may have been transferred. Graciana Husain must, therefore, be deemed to have acquired the land in her own right, subject only to Teodoro Husain's right of redemption. As the new owner she had a perfect right to dispose of the land as she in fact did when she exchanged it for a cattle with Gallar.

2) NO, the action is imprescriptible. This action is not for specific performance; all it seeks is to quiet title, to remove the cloud cast on appellee's ownership as a result of appellant's refusal to recognize the sale made by their predecessor. And, as plaintiff-appellee is in possession of the land, the action is imprescriptible. Appellant's argument that the action has prescribed would be correct if they were in possession as the action to quiet title would then be an action for recovery of real property which must be brought within the statutory period of limitation governing such actions.