This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Sur,  the Hon. Dionisio Chanco presiding,  sustaining a demurrer interposed to the complaint and, the plaintiff failing to amend within the time prescribed by law,  dismissing the complaint, with costs.

The complaint in this action alleges: 

"That on or about one  of the days of the month of February, 1898 (one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight), the plaintiff, in consideration of the  sum of P4.50 and the relations existing between the plaintiff and the defendant, sold to the defendant the land above described on the condition that the plaintiff might repurchase the same  when- ever she had the money, the defendant taking possession of the land by virtue of the agreement referred to."

The court below sustained the demurrer upon the ground that the Civil Code  requires  (art. 1508) that "the right referred to in the  preceding article, in the absence  of  an express agreement, shall last four years  counted  from the date of the contract.  Should there be an agreement, the period shall not exceed ten  years."   The court was of the opinion that under the provisions of the Civil Code referred to a pacto de retro could not exist as such for a longer period than  ten years,  and that  if the property 'which  was the subject of  the agreement  was  not redeemed within that time the title would pass irrevocably to the vendee.

No reason has been presented to  us and no authority has been cited which militates in any way against the correctness of the decision rendered by  the court below.   A pacto de retro is, in a certain aspect,  the suspension of the title to the land involved.   We are of the  opinion that it was the intention of the legislature to limit  the continuance of such a condition, with the purpose that the title to the real estate in  question should be definitely placed,  it being, in the opinion of  the legislature,  against  public policy to permit such  an uncertain  condition  relative to  the title  to real estate to continue for more  than ten years.

The plaintiff in the case not having repurchased the land within the  time  prescribed by  law can  not  maintain the action.   That defect appearing upon the  face of the complaint, the  demurrer  was  the  proper   pleading  and  its allowance by the trial court  was a proper exercise of his discretion.

The judgment  appealed from  is affirmed, with costs.

Torres, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.