This  is an action upon "the warranty of  the  title  to a parcel of land."   After hearing the  cause  in  the lower court,  the  Honorable  Judge  H.  D.  Gale rendered the following decision, which  we adopt as  a true statement of the facts found in the record with a conclusion in accordance with the law and the facts.

"The court is convinced that the plaintiff, Don  Leopoldo Canizares Tiana, purchased from the  defendant, Don Jose Maria Torrejon, for the sum  of P2,500, a lot  with  buildings and improvements,  situate in the  municipality of Jolo, same district,  Moro Province, Philippine Islands, description and  boundaries whereof are as follows:

" 'On the north by Calle P. Mir for a distance of twenty-two meters and ten centimeters; on the south by the property of Rojas  Reyes &  Co., or Sr. Tiana, for a distance of twenty-two  meters and ten  centimeters; on the west by Calle Garcia Loranca, for a  distance  of  eighteen meters and ninety  centimeters; and on the east by a commissary building,  for a  distance  of  eighteen  meters and ninety centimeters.'

"At the sale of the said lot  and improvements,  the vendor, Jose Maria Torrejon, warranted the title thereto as appears from the wording of the contract of sale and purchase, dated June  17, 1905  (Exhibit  B of the plaintiff), which states:

"'I further covenant and agree to be responsible to the aforesaid Leopoldo Canizares Tiana,  his  heirs and successors  in interest, for the property,  and bind myself to defend the title thereto now and forever against any just claims, by whomsoever presented.'

"Before executing the  deed of sale to the estate in  question, that is, on April 12, 1905, the defendant, Jose Maria Torrejon, filed  an application in the Court of Land Registration (case No. 1440), requesting registration of the land and improvements  (Exhibit  A of the plaintiff; p.  53 of the record), the same as  described in  Exhibit B of the plaintiff.

"Although the said Torrejon had executed the  deed of sale to the land and  improvements in  favor of Tiana, he continued to prosecute the case, No. 1440, and it was heard on February 28, 1906 (Exhibit A of the plaintiff; page 76 of the record).   The participation and intervention, either direct or indirect, of the  vendee Tiana, did not  appear until March 1, 1906, when Torrejon presented a written statement to the effect  that  he had transferred  all his rights in the property in  question to Tiana.  Tiana continued the  prosecution of  the case  in the usual manner until decision therein was rendered on November 15, 1906, (p.105 of the record).  The defendant, Jose Maria Torrejon, was  informed of this decision, the result whereof appears in Exhibit C of the plaintiff, page 117 of the record. Tiana asked the court for  a continuation in  order  to present more evidence in support  of the requested registration of the property which is  the. subject of the present litigation, doing this in compliance  with instructions  from Torrejon, as appears from the letter written by the latter, presented in this  case as Exhibit C of the plaintiff.  The court granted this request and continued the  case until July 14, 1907 (pp. Ill and 112 of the record), and notification of this action by the court was transmitted to Torrejon  (Exhibit G of the plaintiff,  p.122  of the record) During the period granted by the court, the plaintiff Tiana requested the  defendant  Torrejon, on  various  occasions, to bring forward the evidence required (Exhibits G, I, J, and K), but the latter failed to do so.   On August 8, 1908, the court  issued a decree dismissing the application  in case No. 1440  and declaring the estate in question to be public property  (p. 112 of the record,  Exhibit A), and notification thereof was sent to Torrejon (Exhibit D of the plaintiff, p. 119  of the record). It  further  appears that  the lot with its buildings and improvements, the subject of this litigation, passed into the possession of the military authorities in the  month of May, 1908; that the plaintiff Tiana received no payment whatsoever for it; and that, at that time, the value of it was P2,500, the amount for which Torrejon sold it to Tiana.  Since the  said  month of May, 1908, or about the middle thereof, when the plaintiff in the present suit was deprived of possession, the estate has produced rent at the rate of P36 a month, of which the plaintiff has  also been  deprived.  On December 14, 1909, the plaintiff Tiana  demanded  that the  defendant Torrejon return or repay to him the sum of P2,500  (Exhibit F of the plaintiff, p. 121 of the record).   It further appears that Torrejon knew of the Government's objection to the application in case No.  1440 (p. 76 of the record, Exhibit A), and that the land, buildings and improvements, described in case No. 1440, were wholly included within  the  boundaries of  the military  reservation of  Jolo, Sulu, Moro Province, P. I.

"Finally, it appears that the land,  buildings and improvements described and specified in case No. 1440 of the Court of  Land Registration,  are  the same  land,  buildings  and improvements involved in the present suit,  described  and specified in  Exhibit  B  of  the  plaintiff,  page 115  of the record, and paragraph 3 of the complaint.

"This  is  an action upon the warranty of the  title to the property in case  of eviction, under article 1475 of the Civil Code.  In  such case  there  are three indispensable requisites:   (1)  Final judgment;  (2)  that the vendee be deprived of the  whole  or a part of the thing sold; and, (3)  a right prior to  the sale (Manresa on the Civil Code, volume 10, pages 161 to 170);  and, finally,  another indispensable requisite is that prescribed in article 1481 of the Civil Code: that the vendor be given notice of the suit at the instance  of the vendee.   On  the merits of the present case, and the preponderance of the plaintiff's evidence, and from the facts  established, all the foregoing requisites  appear herein.  In his brief  the defendant  alleges that the  decree  issued in case No. 1440 was not final and that the  plaintiff could  and should have appealed from it. Such  a case is  expressly decided by the illustrious and learned author, Manresa, in his commentaries on the Civil Code, volume 10, page  163, in  the  following manner:

" 'Can the vendor escape  his  obligation  of warranty by alleging  that although there  may  be  a  final judgment against the vendee, such judgment became final with  the latter's consent?  We understand not, and that the vendee's right does not suffer the least impairment because he  did not appeal.'

"With reference to the allegation of the defendant, Torrejon,  that he was not  notified  of the suit, that  is, of the objection presented by  the  government  in case No. 1440, he can not set up such a defense, for he was himself the applicant in that  case, without  the  intervention of Tiana, and such objection on the part of the government to his  claims already subsisted.

"By virtue of the foregoing considerations, and of  the facts  established  in this cause, the court holds that  the plaintiff, Don Leopoldo Canizares Tiana, is entitled to  recover from the defendant, Don Jose Maria Torrejon,  the sum of P2,500, the price of the real estate involved  in  the present suit, and  that he is also entitled to receive  the sum of P36 a month  from May,  1908,  up to the day on which  this judgment is executed.  With reference to  the counterclaim of the defendant, the court is of the opinion that he has no right to recover anything from the plaintiff.

"The court sentences the defendant, Jose Maria Torrejon, to restore to Don Leopoldo Canizares Tiana,  the sum of P2,500,  the value  of  the  lot,  buildings and improvements  involved in  the  present suit, described  and  specified in this decision, and to pay to said Tiana P36 a month from May, 1908, up to the day on which this judgment is executed; and further sentences the defendant to pay  the costs of this judgment."

The defendant appealed from the foregoing judgment to this court and filed a bill  of exceptions.

Without discussing the errors assigned or reviewing  the case more extensively, and without prejudice to the writing of a more elaborate decision, the  judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with costs.

Arellano, C. J.,  Torres, Mapa,  Carson,  and Trent,  JJ., concur.