This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Occidental  Negros, Hon.  Albert E. McCabe presiding, dismissing the  plaintiff's complaint upon  the merits after trial with  costs.

The action is  one of ejectment.  It appears that on the 16th day of August, 1904, one Esteban Vazquez y Decena, upon  the one hand, and Pedro  Yulo, upon  the other, executed an instrument which, translated, reads as follows:

"DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 2.

"I,  Esteban Vazquez y Decena, a native of Ymamaylan, 60 years of age, married, a farmer by occupation, and a resident of the town of Hinigaran on the west coast of the Island of Negros, hereby make known that, in consideration of  the sum of P250, received by me from Pedro Yulo y Regalado, a resident of Binalbagan, of legal age, with certificate of registration No. 710982, issued by the municipal treasurer of said town, and  which said amount received by  me as aforesaid was thus received in payment of a frame house belonging to me, as appears from the summary information heretofore instituted ; it is bounded on  the north by  a public street for 12 brazas; on the west by a public street and the  lands of Lucio Tansiua and Juan Vasquez, being1 14 brazas deep on the street line and bounded by the crossing street; on the left the property measures 7 brazas, the measurements on plan being at right angles, and the house, which is of strong material, is covered with galvanized iron roofing.

"I  further make known  that the house above described, and located in the town of Hinigaran, I have this day sold with  right of redemption  within the  period of 6  months from date and for the said sum of 250 pesos conant or Philippine currency to  Mr. Pedro Yulo; that is to say, that I may repurchase the property on the last day of the period herein stipulated, but, after the lapse of said  period, the transfer and sale of the said house for the aforesaid amount shall be final; but if I am able to redeem the property within the time herein stipulated, then the vendee shall make the necessary receipt and this  instrument  shall be accordingly cancelled.

"I  further make known that for the said  period  of 6 months herein before stipulated I have leased the said house for the sum of  30 pesos conant, all taxes and repairs to be borne by me.

"I further make known that I hereby covenant and agree with  Esteban Vazquez, who  is the absolute owner of the house in question, that I will guarantee the sale, and further hold myself responsible to the said vendee, Mr. Yulo, his heirs  and assigns, for the ownership and title to the said property, which I hereby promise to defend now and forever against any just claim which may be made against same. "Pedro Yulo,  the vendee, was present and accepted, in their entirety, the terms of this instrument as hereinbefore set out by Mr. Vazquez.

"In witness whereof, we have signed these presents at Binalbagan this  16th day of August, 1904. 

	(Sgd.)  "PEDRO YULO.
	(Sgd.)  "ESTEBAN VAZQUEZ."

On the execution  of said instrument  Esteban Vazquez delivered to Pedro Yulo his muniments of title.

On the 12th day of February, 1906, Pedro Yulo, upon the theory that the above instrument was a pacto de retro and that, as he contended, Esteban Vazquez y Decena not having paid the sum of P250 and interest at the time set forth in the obligation, he, Yulo, became the absolute owner thereof and had  the right to  dispose of the same as he saw fit, sold said  premises by private document to Joaquin  Villadelgado, one of the defendants in this case.  At the time of such sale, and for years prior thereto, Esteban Vazquez y Decena had  been in public, peaceful, and uninterrupted possession of said premises  under claim of ownership and continued in such possession until the 24th day  of April, 1907.  That Esteban Vazquez y Decena was the  owner in fee simple of the house in question at the time of  the execution of the instrument set forth above is undisputed.

On the  5th day of January, 1907, said Esteban Vazquez y Decena, being, as above stated, in possession of said premises, and claiming to be the owner thereof, sold  the same to Pedro  Vazquez, the plaintiff  in  this case, for the sum of P4,300 and immediately thereafter delivered possession thereof to the purchaser, said Esteban Vazquez continuing to occupy a portion of said premises as tenant of the said Pedro Vazquez, paying him a monthly rental of P2.50.

On the 24th day  of April,  1907, Joaquin  Villadelgado, one of the defendants in this case, commenced an action against said Esteban  Vazquez y Decena and another to recover, among other  things, the possession of the  house which, at that time, Esteban Vazquez y Decena was occupying in part as a tenant of the plaintiff in this case, Pedro Vazquez, which said house is the subject-matter of the present litigation.  On  the  7th day of February, 1908,  a decision was rendered by  Judge Jocson of the  Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros awarding the possession of said  house  to Joaquin Villadelgado, and ordering possession delivered in accordance therewith.  On the 23d of March,  1908,  Pedro Vazquez, plaintiff in this action, through his attorney, served notice upon  the sheriff of the province where the said house is located that he was the owner of the same, claiming  to  have purchased it from Esteban  Vazquez y Decena on  the 5th  day  of  January, 1907, and in proof of such purchase he presented a deed of said house, duly  executed  and acknowledged by Esteban Vazquez  y Decena.

On the 23d of May, 1908, Esteban Vazquez y Decena having refused to deliver possession of the house, Joaquin Villadelgado commenced an action  of desahucio before the justice of the peace of the municipality in  which said house was located.   The  plaintiff succeeded in that action  and said Esteban Vazquez  y Decena was subsequently dispossessed by virtue of the judgment secured  in that case.

On the 30th day of April,  1908, this  action  was  commenced by Pedro Vazquez against Joaquin Villadelgado and others to determine the title to said premises and to secure possession of the same.

In this action it  is the claim of the defendant Villadelgado, as it is the claim of Pedro Yulo, his vendor, that the instrument of the 16th  day of August, 1904, between Esteban Vazquez y Decena and Pedro Yulo is a pacto de retro, as defined by the Civil  Code, that is to say, a sale with the right to repurchase; that the time within which the property could have  been  repurchased or redeemed by  said Vazquez  y Decena, by the  payment of the sum of P250 and interest, expired on the 12th day of February, 1905; that Esteban Vazquez y Decena did not, during said period, repurchase the said property or pay the sum set forth in said instrument, with  interest thereon, within the  time prescribed by the terms  of said document,  and for that reason the title  became absolute in Pedro Yulo on the expiration of the  last day of said term; that the sale from Pedro Yulo to Joaquin Villadelgado, one of the defendants in this  case,  was an absolute sale legally perfect in every respect and  binding upon Esteban  Vazquez y Decena as well as upon Pedro Yulo  and  Joaquin Villadelgado; that by reason thereof the sale of said premises to Pedro Vazquez  by Esteban Vazquez  y Decena on the 5th day of January, 1907, was ineffective, the  vendor having, at the time, no interest to transfer.

It is the claim of the plaintiff in this action (1) that the instrument executed between Esteban Vazquez y Decena and Pedro Yulo is not a pacto  de retro in the  legal sense and carries none of the legal consequences which accompany such an instrument; (2) that, even though said  instrument is a sale with the right of repurchase, nevertheless, and as a  matter of  fact, said Esteban Vazquez y Decena in the month of January,  1905,  and prior  to the termination of the period fixed by said instrument, paid  to Pedro Yulo the sum of P370 in full settlement of the obligation created by said instrument, and by such payment said instrument, of whatever  nature, was  canceled and became ineffective and the  interest which Pedro  Yulo had in  the house in question by virtue thereof ceased.

The  plaintiff  contends  that  his  proofs  show that  the payment of the  said sum of P370  was made by Esteban Vazquez y Decena through his  son Antipas Vazquez; that during the month of January, 1905, and for some time prior thereto, said Antipas Vazquez and Pedro Yulo had an open and current account between them,  representing business dealings  of some magnitude; that in said  month of January, 1905, Pedro Yulo, at the request of Antipas Vazquez, charged to the  account of  Antipas  Vazquez the sum  of P370  and  credited  that  amount  upon the  indebtedness created by the instrument already referred to executed between  Esteban Vazquez y Decena and Pedro Yulo, thereby paying the same in full; that said instrument was by Antipas Vazquez demanded  of  said Pedro Yulo at the time of such payment;  that he failed to produce it, alleging as the reason for said  failure that the instrument had been mislaid and could  not be  found; that several times thereafter the instrument was demanded by  Esteban Vazquez y Decena and each  time  its  delivery was withheld, Yulo presenting the same excuse as at  first; that the action of Joaquin  Villadelgado against Esteban  Vazquez y  Decena, above  referred to, having been begun  on the 24th day of April,  1907, Esteban Vazquez y Decena again, and on  the 30th day of April,  1907, through his son Antipas, requested the immediate delivery  of said instrument for  his protection in the action  referred to and  demanded  to know why such action had been commenced; that  Pedro Yulo assured Antipas  that his father need not be troubled over the  action referred to, as it would amount to nothing, and, upon the request of Antipas, in order to quiet  the fears of  Esteban,  delivered to him a paper duly  signed by him  for presentation as a defense in said action, stating again that he was unable  to  deliver  the original  instrument for  the reason that it could not be found; he assured him, however, that the  paper which he then delivered would be sufficient protection against  the action  of Villadelgado.

The  plaintiff has presented several witnesses.  Antipas Vazquez  testified substantially, to the facts  as above related. As a witness he asserted that,  during the month of January, 1905, and for some time prior thereto, he had had a running, open and current account with Pedro Yulo; that at the same time he also had  an account with his father, Esteban  Vazquez  y  Decena; that during the month  of January he made a settlement with his father which showed that there was due  to  his father  from him the  sum  of P1,520; that his father requested that he liquidate the said sum by paying P370 to Pedro Yulo in satisfaction of  the obligation contained in the so-called  pacto  de retro, and that he pay the balance to Pedro Vazquez, to whom he, Esteban Vazquez y Decena, was then owing a  considerable sum of money;  that he thereupon, and during the same month, called upon Pedro Yulo in relation to the payment of the sum due on  said instrument and that, having agreed thereto, Pedro Yulo charged the  said sum of  P370 to his account in discharge of said obligation; that he demanded possession of  the  instrument in  question at  the time  of said payment  but  it was withheld by Pedro Yulo  on the ground that he was unable to find it; that thereafter Esteban Vazquez, Jr., a brother of  the witness,  was sent to obtain said instrument  from Pedro Yulo, but  his demand was as fruitless as had been that of the witness; that, after the commencement of the action against his father by Joaquin Villadelgado  and  on the 30th day of April, 1907,  he again visited Pedro Yulo for the  purpose of obtaining the instrument as a defense to said  action; that  he received the same excuse as before for its nondelivery; that he thereupon requested from Pedro Yulo some writing which would indicate the discharge  of said obligation and which might be presented as a defense to said action in place of the lost instrument; that thereupon Pedro Yulo  wrote and signed a paper for the purposes indicated and delivered it to Antipas  Vazquez on behalf of his father.  This testimony of Antipas Vazquez is supported and fully corroborated  by the testimony of Esteban Vazquez y  Decena and Esteban Vazquez, Jr.

The witness Jose Robles testified that in  the month of January, 1905, he was present at the settlement which took place between Esteban Vazquez y Decena and  his son Antipas Vazquez;  and that such settlement disclosed  that Antipas Vazquez was  owing to his father about P1,500; that at that time Antipas Vazquez agreed with his father that he would pay to Pedro Yulo the sum of P370 on behalf of his father  for  the discharge of the obligation already referred to, and that the remainder of the sum due from him to his father he would pay to Pedro Vazquez on the indebtedness of his father to the latter.

Pedro Vazquez corroborated the testimony presented to show the agreement between Esteban Vazquez y Decena and Antipas Vazquez by testifying that  Antipas Vazquez, in pursuance of his agreement with his father,  paid him a considerable sum of money, something like P800, upon the indebtedness due him from Esteban Vazquez y Decena.

Pedro Yulo was the only witness for the defense who testified concerning the execution of the instrument between himself and Esteban Vazquez  y Decena and in relation to the alleged payment of the obligation created by said instrument.  He  denied that Esteban  Vazquez,  by himself or by  his agent, ever attempted to satisfy  the obligation created by such instrument, and asserted that  the paper which  he, at the request  of Antipas  Vazquez,  signed  and delivered on the 30th day of April,  1907, on behalf of Esteban Vazquez y Decena, was  simply  a vale  or promissory note which,  for want of P370 in cash, he gave  to Antipas Vazquez as a loan.  He denied that Antipas Vazquez  ever demanded of him the instrument in question, and contradicted  the assertion that Esteban Vazquez, Jr.,  made  such demand.  He testified  that Antipas Vazquez came to him to request his intervention to  induce  Joaquin Villadelgado to permit the redemption of the house after the action had been begun by said Villadelgado against  Esteban Vazquez y Decena for the possession of the same, and that together they went to see Joaquin Villadelgado  to that end and  that the latter refused to permit such redemption.  Villadelgado does not corroborate this testimony.    The defense presents no witness supporting the testimony  of  Pedro Yulo with respect to the payment, or the nonpayment, of the debt due him  from Esteban Vazquez y  Decena. In this respect he stands alone.  The plaintiff, in corroboration of the testimony of Esteban Vazquez y Decena, Antipas Vazquez and Esteban  Vazquez, jr.,  presents in  evidence  certain documents.  One  of  them, Exhibit A,  is  a statement of  the current account between Antipas Vazquez and Pedro Yulo, signed by both of them.  On the third page of that account there appears this charge against Antipas Vazquez: 

1907, April 30.  Pdo. a E. Vazquez pr. s/c y o/.................... P370.00

Translated and extended this entry reads: 

1907, April 30. Pdo. a E. Vazquez for the account and order of  Antipas Vazquez .................................P370.00

The other  document, Exhibit B, translated,  reads as follows:

"Vale  for the sum of three  hundred and seventy pesos Philippine currency, in favor of Antipas Vazquez. "Binalbagan, 30th of April, 1907.  P370.00.

(Sgd.)   "PEDRO  YULO."

This instrument has written upon it the following: "Indorsed in favor of Don Esteban Vazquez the amount of this vale, of Don Pedro Yulo. 

"Hinigaran, 30th of April, 1907.  P370.00.

(Sgd.)   "ANTIPAS VAZQUEZ."

In relation to this documentary evidence it is defendant's claim that the so-called vale corroborates the testimony of Pedro Yulo when he asserts, as a witness for the defendant, that Antipas Vazquez sought to borrow P370 of the latter to pay a debt which he owed his father Esteban Vazquez y Decena, and that he, Yulo, not having the cash, executed and delivered to Antipas Vazquez his promissory note for that amount, to be negotiated by Antipas Vazquez to obtain that sum.

On the other hand, plaintiff argues that such is not necessarily the construction of that instrument. He asserts that it might, if not would, be regarded as a receipt executed by Pedro Yulo for the sum of P370 paid to him by Antipas Vazquez.  In support of such argument he  recurs to that entry of the account between  Pedro Yulo and Antipas Vazquez above quoted which shows that the said sum of P370 instead of being paid to Antipas Vazquez was in reality charged to Antipas Vazquez and paid or  credited to Esteban  Vazquez y  Decena,  his father.   In  other  words, it is contended that  if defendant's construction of the so-called vale is maintained, then that document is in material contradiction of the entry made in the account, inasmuch as said vale, as construed by the defendant, asserts a payment made to  Antipas Vazquez, while the entry made by Pedro Yulo in his account against Antipas Vazquez shows a charge against Antipas Vazquez for that amount and payment or credit  of said sum to the father.  It is conceded that the vale and the entry in the account refer  to the same sum and to the same transaction.  The learned trial court in the decision of the case accepted the construction for which the defendant contended.  He says:

"It is the contention of the plaintiff that this vale, Exhibit B, is in reality a receipt  from Pedro Yulo, showing that the repurchase price on this house had been paid.  If this amount had been paid to Pedro Yulo  in January, 1905, or Antipas Vazquez  had assumed the indebtedness at that time, this court is unable to understand  why  it  does not show in  Exhibit A for the year 1905,  or why he did not charge himself at  that time with the amount.  There is nothing on  the face of  this vale given  April 30,  1907, which  would indicate that  it is a  receipt given by Pedro Yulo for money paid him, nor  is there anything over the signature of Pedro Yulo  on this vale, Exhibit B, showing that it referred in  any way to the house  or to matters relating to Esteban Vazquez.   Pedro Yulo testifying for the defendant says  that there was an account current existing between him and Antipas Vazquez, and that on April 30, 1907, Antipas Vazquez came  to him  and  said that he was indebted  to his father P370, and wanted to borrow from him the amount.  Yulo testifies that he told Antipas Vazquez that he would give him a vale for that amount which he could negotiate or cash, and  then pay his father.  Yulo says that he did this and that he executed  this vale, Exhibit B, and gave it  to Antipas Vazquez.  This vale  as appears according to the writing thereon was on this same day indorsed by Antipas Vazquez over to his father, Esteban.   It must be remembered that this vale was given on  the 30th of April, 1907, which  was six days after  Joaquin  Villadelgado had commenced his suit against Esteban Vazquez for the recovery of this  house.

"Now it appears to this court that had this money been paid to Pedro Yulo and this house repurchased prior to this time, and that they wanted a receipt from him  showing that fact as a defense against  the claim of Joaquin Villadelgado, they would  have worded it different from the way this vale was worded, and  that they  would have  secured from Yulo a statement in writing showing that the repurchase price of the  house had  been paid him,  instead of having him give  a vale, which has nothing upon  the face of it connecting it with the house transaction.

"It is  a very common  practice in the Philippine Islands for business men, when they desire to  make an advance to the parties carrying on business with them, and they have no money on hand,  to give  a  vale in the form that this Exhibit B is written,  which the party receiving can take and negotiate with others who are willing to advance the money upon  it.   This  is frequently done  where the party giving the vale is a man of good standing and some wealth, as is  the case with Pedro Yulo.

"This vale, as it is written, is one that Esteban  Vazquez or his father could  probably have taken and negotiated. Certainly there is nothing about it to indicate that Pedro Yulo merely gave it as a  receipt for money paid him.  Neither is there anything in Exhibit A of the plaintiff which would indicate that.    On the other hand,  Exhibit A shows that Antipas Vazquez  had charged this on  his account as an amount due from him to Pedro Yulo, having charged  it in his debit account. 

"The court is of the opinion that the statement given by Pedro Yulo regarding the transaction of the giving of this vale is the true version of the affair.  Another thing should be remembered, that if this repurchase price of the house had really been paid in  January, 1905, it would not have amounted to P370, and if it was paid in April, 1907, it would not be P370, but would be at least P410, providing the rent of P5 per month had been continued; and yet again is it true that if this Exhibit B was given by Pedro Yulo on April 30th, 1907, as a receipt showing that this  property had been repurchased or redeemed by Esteban Vazquez, it would not affect the rights of Joaquin Villadelgado who had purchased  the property from Pedro  Yulo on  February 12, 1906."

As is evident, this finding of the court  is based almost entirely upon the wording  of the so-called vale, Exhibit B, the court holding that there is nothing in that instrument indicating that it is a receipt for the sum of P370, or that it was intended as such.  We are aware of the strength of the contention that Exhibit B takes the ordinary form of a vale, or I O U; as used in certain localities in the Philippine Islands.   We  have not overlooked,  either, the fact that the entry in Exhibit A, the account between Antipas Vazquez and Pedro Yulo, is, in a sense, a corroborate on of the construction given by the court to Exhibit A, the charge in said account being, in  a manner,  consistent  with the assertion that Exhibit B was a loan of credit instead of a receipt for money paid.   It must not be forgotten, however, that, while  the finding of  the court referred to has some support in  said documentary proof,  there still remain some features of those documents inconsistent with that finding. In the first place,  there  is no substantial reason why the name of Esteban Vazquez  y Decena should appear in the charge  against Antipas Vazquez in Exhibit A.   It is,  as already stated, the contention of defendant that the loan was made to Antipas Vazquez and that he was charged with that amount.   Esteban Vazquez y  Decena  had no  part whatever  in the transaction.   Under  such contention, it was the concern of nobody, least of  all Yulo, what Antipas did with the money or with the vale which he was to negotiate for money.  Speaking from the  ordinary  point  of view, if the transaction did not concern Esteban Vazquez y Decena, his name would not have appeared in it.   The ordinary and  natural  entry made on the  transaction as presented and  interpreted by Yulo would have been as follows: 

April 30, 1907.  To vale issued for negotiation........................ P370.00

If a fuller  statement  of the transaction  were deemed advisable, the entry might read: 

April 30, 1907. To money loaned by vale of even date herewith  P370.00

There was no call for  the insertion  of the name of Esteban Vazquez y  Decena in  any entry properly and  correctly representing the transaction as interpreted by Yulo. Either of the  entries above indicated would have given a clear and complete history of the transaction and the return of the vale to Yulo for payment after it had been negotiated by Antipas or his father would have been complete proof of the verity of such entry.  The use  of the name of Esteban Vazquez y Decena  in the  entry indicates, if it does not prove, that he was materially concerned in the transaction between Yulo and  Antipas,  so much concerned indeed that, according to Yulo's  appreciation of the situation, the entry would not be complete or correct without mentioning his name.

Moreover, in determining the correctness of the finding which we are  discussing, we must do so not only in the light of the instruments themselves, but also in plain view of all the circumstances preceding, surrounding and following their execution.   There are certain facts which, while they do not bear directly on the construction to be given to  the instruments  in  question, are,  nevertheless, so intimately connected with it that they have,  in our opinion, a strong  influence.  It  should be noted that the value of the house which Pedro Yulo alleges he purchased for P250 was variously  estimated from P2,000 to P14,000, P2,000 being the value set  by  Pedro Yulo himself, and seven or eight thousand pesos being the value set by disinterested witnesses.  We are  inclined  to  believe that  a fair value of the house, according to the evidence, was about ?6,000. It is  evident, therefore, that, according to Yulo's contention,  Esteban Vazquez y Decena was likely to lose a house valued at P6,000, for want of the sum of P250, with interest and charges; that Esteban Vazquez y Decena, knowing that fact, nevertheless, permitted the expiration of the time  stipulated  in  the so-called  yacto de retro,  not  only without making  any effort whatever to pay the sum therein stipulated but also without so much as a request to Pedro Yulo for an extension of the time specified.  It is hard to believe that  a person  of ordinary intelligence  and  comprehension would thus remain quiet and inactive with the full knowledge that he was losing a valuable home for want of a sum amounting to about one-thirtieth of  its value. It is difficult for us  to believe that such a thing actually occurred.  It is  a necessary conclusion from all  the  facts and  circumstances of  the case  that  Esteban Vazquez  y Decena  either did not regard the instrument executed between him and  Pedro Yulo as a pacto de retro  or else he firmly believed  that  he had  redeemed  the  house  from the operation of that instrument.  If he honestly believed, as his actions indicate,  that he had paid the sum required of him  to satisfy the obligation imposed upon the house, then it is  certain that if Exhibit B had any connection whatever with the so-called pacto de retro, that instrument was not a vale but was  in the nature of a receipt for the payment of the sum of P250  and accrued interest and charges and was, in effect, a cancellation  of the instrument containing that obligation.  Every act of Esteban Vazquez  y Decena preceding the execution of Exhibit B indicates that he fully believed that the obligation subsisting against the house in question had been paid and discharged.  He maintained possession of the house after the expiration of the time stipulated in the so-called pacto de retro  and, after such expiration, paid absolutely  no rent to  Pedro  Yulo.  Although  it appears undisputed in the record and is a conceded fact  in this case that Pedro Yulo claimed to own the house in question for almost a year after he claims to have become  the owner of it, nevertheless, Esteban Vazquez y Decena, during all that year, paid not a cent of rent, nor  was he required or even requested to do so by Pedro Yulo or anyone in his  behalf.   Moreover, not only did  he occupy the house without rent for its use and occupation, but  he also paid the rent for the  ground upon which  the house stood, just as he  had done from the time of its erection.  At no time prior to the  execution of Exhibit  B by Pedro Yulo did Esteban Vazquez y Decena perform  a single act which did not have as its necessary basis the beJief that the obligation imposed  by the so-called pacto de retro had been paid and discharged.  Precisely the same thing may be said as to his acts and conduct at the time of and after the execution of Exhibit B, the so-called vale.  This  instrument was by Antipas Vazquez delivered to his father immediately  after its receipt from Pedro Yulo.  He took it into his  possession and there it  remained.  Although it is claimed  by Pedro Yulo that  said vale was executed by him as a loan to Antipas Vazquez to pay a debt to his father, yet said instrument was kept in the possession of Esteban Vazquez y Decena  without using it in any manner whatever, so far  as appears of record, except as a safeguard against being dispossessed of the house in which he lived. Although so  straitened financially  that  he  could not pay 370 to save a P6,000 house, or pay a debt which he owed to Pedro Vazquez, without the intervention and aid of his son, of pay various other demands the payment of which, it is alleged in defendant's brief, he sought to escape, still it is asserted by the  defense that he took and kept in his possession an  instrument upon which he  would have been able  to raise the sum of P370 by mere negotiation, without obtaining the money which he so much needed.  The question "Why did not Esteban Vazquez y Decena negotiate the vale, if he understood it to be a loan, instead of holding it in his  possession?"  is unanswered by the defense.  That Esteban Vazquez y Decena should remain quiet and tranquil through  the  period of three years without any attempt whatever to redeem his property from loss is unbelievable. That  he  received  the  so-called  vale  to  negotiate for  his necessities and then kept it for  years without doing so is, under all the circumstances of this  case, almost  equally unbelievable.   Again, knowing that he had  not  redeemed the house within the time prescribed by the so-called pacto de retro  and knowing, therefore, that it was forever lost to him, nevertheless, he lived quietly  in  said premises for one year and  three months after said house had become the property of Pedro Yulo, paying rent  to nobody, except the ground rent to Juana Guanzon, and  eventually quietly and tranquilly selling it free and clear from all  liens  and incumbrances  to the plaintiff in this action for the sum of P4,300.  When the two  actions for  the  possession of the premises  were brought against him  by Joaquin Villadelgado, one on the 24th  of April, 1907, in  the  Court of First  Instance, and the other on the 23d of May, 1908, before the justice of the peace of Hinigaran, he permitted both actions to go by  default upon the belief,  evidently, that he had theretofore sold the property to the plaintiff in this case and that an action against him would accomplish no result, he having no interest in the premises.   This conduct, probably unpremeditated and undesigned, indicates the belief that the property had been legally transferred free from incumbrance to Pedro Vazquez, a necessary precedent to which  was  the  discharge  of  the obligation  of the so-called pacto de retro. Not only does the conduct  of Esteban Vazquez y Decena and Antipas Vazquez show the interpretation which they placed upon Exhibit B,  but also the conduct of Pedro Yulo and Joaquin Villadelgado demonstrates to our minds with fair conclusiveness  that they also interpreted Exhibit B in the same manner. We  call again to mind  the fact that Pedro Yulo collected the rent of P2.50 from Esteban Vazquez y Decena  for each month during  the six months prescribed in the  so-called pacto de retro.  We recall the fact that after the  expiration of said six  months Pedro Yulo not only did not receive further rent from Esteban Vazquez y Decena but did not demand any.  Although he claims to  have been the absolute  owner of the house  from the 16th day of February, 1905, to the 12th of February, 1906, when he sold it to Joaquin ViUadelgado, nevertheless, it is undisputed in this case that he did not receive any consideration  whatever for the use of said premises by Esteban Vazquez y Decena, and that he did not demand anything for such use.  Not only did he not collect the rent or demand it,  but he made no overtures upon the subject of the rent of  the house to Esteban Vazquez y Decena and communicated with him in no way as to the claims or rights under which he was occupying.  Instead of the conduct which we  would  ordinarily expect of Pedro  Yulo  under these circumstances, we find him, without word or sign to Esteban Vazquez y Decena, quietly, if not secretly, selling said house to one of the defendants in this action, Joaquin Villadelgado, by document not publicly executed or registered in any public office.

In this connection the price at which Pedro YuJo sold the house to Joaquin Villadelgado must not be overlooked.  As we have already observed, it was worth, according to the evidence, at least P6,000.  Yet we find  Pedro  Yulo giving this testimony before the Court of First Instance  on the trial of this action: 

"Q. What was the price you received for the sale of the house to Mr. Villadelgado? - A. ?300 plus the interest. 

"Court  (addressing  witness).  And  you sold a house worth P2,000 for P300.  Did you sell a house worth F2,000 belonging to you for P300? 

"Witness. Yes, sir."

COURT CONTINUING EXAMINATION OP WITNESS.

"Q. And you are a business man? - A. Besides the house the other document was included too. 

"Q. How much did you get for that document? - A. In the two documents P1,200.

"Q. Well,  but that other document  had no lien on the house, had it? - A. No sir, it was a different one.

"Q. So you  actually sold the house  for  P300? - A.  Yes sir.

"Q. Well, now, explain to me why is it you sold a house worth P2,000  for P300? - A.  I sold this house for P300 because  Mr.  Villadelgado assumed  to pay me the value of the other document which is more than this."

In explanation of some portions of this  evidence it should be stated that  Pedro Yulo  himself testified that the value of the house was P2,000, and it is claimed by him that, when he sold  the  house for P300,  Joaquin  Villadelgado  guaranteed the payment of a certain other obligation which Yulo held against Esteban Vazquez y Decena.  It should also be stated that, according to the evidence, Villadelgado has already collected from Esteban Vazquez y Decena considerably more than half of the amount of the obligation the payment of which he is  claimed to have  secured.  It is evident, therefore,  that the  obligation  under which  Villadelgado placed himself to Pedro Yulo as a part of the purchase price of said house is, to say  the  most, a very small one and  one which is, at the most, uncertain.   The whole purchase price of  the house, obligation and all, could not exceed six or seven hundred pesos, and in making  this estimate we are,  we believe, giving  to the defense the benefit of  every possible  assumption  favorable to  it.   We have, then, a house which  Pedro Yulo himself  in his  testimony values at P2,000 and  which is worth, as  we  have said, at least P6,000, sold for not more than one-tenth of its value.  Tnis is a  fact which,  as appears from the evidence  quoted, so astonished the  court  as to lead him personally to direct a series of questions to  Yulo apparently for the purpose of ascertaining  whether or not he had made a  slip in  the use of language,  once making such an assertion  not being sufficient to convince the court that  a declaration so incredible was intended.  That under normal  conditions  Pedro Yulo, a shrewd and  careful business man, should voluntarily sell a house valued at P6,000 for one-tenth of its value is unreasonable.  It is  so against the ordinary  experience and conduct of man as to be rejected at a glance.   It seems to us to be but a fair  inference when we say that Pedro Yulo did not act in that way unless there was  something abnormal and unusual  lying behind the transaction.   The question is, "What was it?"   The evidence does not disclose it directly.  We can only  draw inference and  conclusion from the facts and circumstances as they appear.   The only conclusion at all logical or reasonable is that Pedro Yulo was aware, or, if not aware, at least afraid, that there was a defect in his title to the house in question and, as a result, knew that in transferring  the property to Villadelgado he was transferring something of  very  doubtful value.   The further conclusion is that Villadelgado was equally aware of that fact and accepted the house with that understanding. This appears to be the natural, almost unavoidable inference, particularly in view of the fact that when Villadelgado purchased the house Esteban Vazquez y Decena had been in possession almost a year under claim of ownership, without paying  rent, and  was  at the time of such  sale  in open, visible, notorious and peaceable possession of the premises, under claim of ownership, paying rent to  nobody and admitting a superior title  in no one.  Furthermore, although Joaquin Villadelgado purchased the house from Pedro Yulo on the 12th of February, 1906, he made no mention of that fact to  Esteban Vasquez y  Decena.  He avoided  bringing his claims to the notice  of Esteban.  In other words, Villadelgado permitted one  to occupy  a valuable house which he claimed to own for a year and two months, from February 12, 1906, to April 24, 1907, without a word as to such occupancy, without investigating the interest which the occupant claimed in the premises,  and without seeking to obtain possession of the same by any process.   When he did move he brought an action in court without  so much as making a demand.  Not only did Yulo and Villadelgado neglect to require rent  of Esteban Vasquez y Decena but they also neglected to pay the rent for the ground upon which the said house stands, leaving it to be paid by Esteban Vazquez  y Decena.

Such acts and conduct are unnatural and unusual.  We believe that they outweigh very materially and with strong preponderance the  seeming  corroboration which Exhibits A and  B give to the contention of Pedro Yulo.  If the acts and conduct of persons are of value  in the construction of their contracts, we have Esteban Vazquez y  Decena and Antipas  Vazquez, at a time when it could not have been premeditated for effect, acting as if they thoroughly believed  that Exhibit B was a receipt for a payment made in discharge of the obligation incurred  by  the so-called pacto de retro.  We have Pedro Yulo and Joaquin  Villadelgado acting and conducting themselves as if they believed it also.  Having in mind the contradictions which appear in the  testimony  of the witnesses for the parties to this action, we are of the opinion that such acts and conduct are decisive.

These considerations compel us to believe that the finding of the  learned trial court in favor of the defendant on the subject of the payment of the obligation imposed by the so-called  is not sustained by a fair preponderance of the evidence. pacto de retro.

We attach no importance to the contention of defendant's counsel that the sale from Esteban  Vazquez y Decena to Pedro Vazquez was  fraudulent.  No competent proof  whatever was presented to sustain that  contention.  The only evidence  offered to that end in the case refers to unauthorized acts  of Esteban  Vazquez, Jr., and not to those of Esteban Vazquez y Decena.

The  judgment of the court below  is reversed and  judgment hereby given  in  favor of the  plaintiff, awarding to him the  title to and possession of the  house in  question. So ordered.

Torres, Mapa, and Johnson, JJ., concur.