On the 21st of September, 1905, Lucia,  Eduvigis, and Inocenta Perez presented an amended  written complaint in the Court of First Instance of Oriental  Negros, alleging that the two first named were  the owners of a  parcel of land situated in the sitio of Looc, in the town of Guiljungan of the said province, about 30 hectares in  area, and bounded on  the  north  by the small river  Nagcalhin, on the south by lands now owned by Ciriaco Jambalos, formerly belonging to Victor Jambalos  and Pelagic Villegas, on the east by  the sea and by  land belonging to Pedro Olang, and on the west by the  land of Dorotea Malahay; that their predecessor,  Liberato Perez, had recorded  the  possessory information of  the above-described land  in the  registry of property of Oriental Negros  on the 16th of April, 1895; that the plaintiffs Lucia  and Eduvigis transferred  one-half of the said land to Dominga Bolado, the mother of Inocenta Perez, on January  21, 1902, which half has a  capacity of 20 gantas of corn seed, and is bounded on the north by the other half,  on the south by  lands of Juan Palermo and Andrea Carampatana, on the east by the beach and the said other half, and on the west by lands of Tomasa Planas and the small river; that Dominga  in turn transferred to Inocenta Perez the said half of the estate on May 25 following, and the land described is a part of the  said half; that in January, 1903, the defendants, Domingo  Cortes  and his wife Dominga Ubaldo, usurped and unlawfully retained the land last described, and still  retain it without  possessing any right thereto, and that in consequence of said usurpation and retention by the defendants of the aforesaid land of Inocenta Perez, the plaintiffs suffered  damages to the extent of P250 by reason  of benefits and products not received, for which reason they prayed that judgment be entered in their favor, declaring the plaintiffs  Lucia and Eduvigis, as heirs of the late Liberato Perez,  to be the lawful owners  of  the  whole  of the land  described in the complaint; that the transfer made by said heirs  of one half of the land to Dominga Bolado and that effected by the latter to Inocenta Perez be ratified and confirmed;  that the defendants be ordered to restore the parcel of land described in paragraph one of the complaint, usurped and  unlawfully retained by them, and to pay P250 as damages for the benefits and products not received, and to pay the costs.

The defendants, after demurring to the complaint, filed an answer thereto on  the 8th of February, 1906,  denying all the allegations contained in each and every  one of the paragraphs  therein,  and  asked to  be  absolved  therefrom with the costs against the plaintiffs. '

By  another written  answer to the amended complaint the said  defendants denied paragraphs 1,  2, 4, 5, and 6, and admitted paragraph 3 of the complaint, alleging that they were  and still are in  possession as owners of part of the land mentioned in the said paragraph 3; that said land is bounded on the north by lands of  Inocenta Perez, on the south by that of Juan Palermo, on  the east by that of Pelagio Villegas, and on the west by land belonging to a non-Christian; that said portion of land was included in a false possessory information in the name of Liberato Perez in 1895,  and was fraudulently recorded in the registry of property;  that in 1895 Liberato Perez  was not, nor had ever been in possession of  said land, and that  the person who was in possession  in said year was Vicente Perez, the real owner; that Perez transferred his rights to Pedro Olang, and upon  the death of the  latter, his widow, Dominga Ubaldo,  inherited the said parcel; for these reasons they asked that the entry made in the registry of property be canceled and that the possessory information be declared null and void in so far as the land of the  defendants is referred to, and that the latter be absolved of the complaint with the costs against the plaintiffs.

The case came up for trial and evidence was adduced by the parties, their exhibits being made of record.  On the 6th of March, 1906, judgment was rendered by the lower court ordering that Inocenta Perez be restored in the possession of the usurped land which the defendants who retain it must vacate, the same being the property of Lucia Perez and Eduvigis Perez,  and that Inocenta be indemnified by the defendants in the sum of P250 for losses and damages, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the 21st of September,  1903, and that the  said plaintiffs shall recover costs from the defendants.

The latter excepted to the foregoing decision and moved for a new trial on the ground that it was contrary to law, and that the findings were manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence; the motion was overruled,  to  which the petitioners excepted and presented the corresponding bill of exceptions which was approved and submitted to this court.

It has been fully proven in the case that Liberato Perez, the father of two of the plaintiffs, by virtue of the possession he enjoyed as owner for more than sixty years, without counting that of his ancestors, lawfully acquired by means of extraordinary prescription, under the provisions of article 1959 of the Civil Code, the ownership of about 30 hectares of land described in the complaint.  There can be no question therefore as to the right of his two daughters, plaintiffs herein, to recover possession of the duly identified portion of said land  from the defendants who, forcibly and without any reason whatever, took possession of said land; the said daughters succeeded their father in  his  rights and obligations from the moment of his death  (art. 661, Civil Code), and as actual proprietors of a portion of the estate retained at the time  the complaint  was  filed, they were entitled to bring an action against the  holders and possessors thereof to recover possession (art.  348, Civil Code), it appearing in the case that said portion was forcibly taken possession of, and retained up to the present  day; by the express will  of the owners of the said portion, Inocenta Perez, another of the plaintiffs, enjoyed the possession and usufruct of the same.

Impugning the right of  the  plaintiffs, the  defendants alleged that they were and still are the owners of the  part or portion of land claimed, for the reason that Pedro Olang had acquired it in 1895 from its lawful owner and possessor, Vicente Perez, and that Dominga Ubaldo inherited it upon the death of  her husband, the said Olang; for said reason they asked that the possessory information filed by Liberato Perez while living for the ownership of the whole parcel of land  be  declared  null, as  well as its  registration in the registry  of property, because the portion  of  land  in  controversy was fraudulently included in said information and recorded in the registry in the said year.

It is nowhere shown that Vicente Perez was either the owner or in possession as such, in 1895, of the portion of land  in controversy, nor that Pedro Olang had lawfully acquired or had been in possession thereof; hence, the defendant Dominga Ubaldo could not have succeeded to any right to  that part of the land, notwithstanding the documentary  evidence and the testimony of  the witnesses with which she attempted to show such right.

It appears to be proven in the case that in January, 1903, Dominga Ubaldo and Domingo Cortes, her second husband, took  possession  of the said  portion  of land and  ejected therefrom the laborers that Inocenta  Perez employed to work thereon, and from the day of the usurpation to the present day they have retained the estate, and in spite of this act of spoliation, an actual transgression which is not permitted even to the lawful owner, and  without  having presented any deed of transfer by which Olang might have acquired the ownership of said portion of the land,  his widow now claims to be the owner of the same.  Dominga Bolado, mother of the plaintiff Inocenta Perez  and  of  Vicente Perez, only received one-half  of  the  30 hectares of land to which the possessory information refers, and took possession  thereof in January,  1902; before the expiration of said year, the actual date not appearing, the said Vicente Perez died; his mother was still living, and the latter  before her death transferred the possession of the said moiety of the land to her only  surviving daughter, Inocenta.  From all  of  the  foregoing it is logically  deduced that Vicente Perez was  never  in possession  of the estate in 1902 under title of ownership, from which  date his mother took charge of the  same in usufruct, for the reason that he  died a few months later, and much less in 1895, because Liberate Perez, who possessed it  in its entirety as the real owner,  was still living.

It may be true that Vicente Perez  owed Pedro  Olang 100 pesos in the year 1895, but it can not be admitted that4 he gave the said land as security;  it  did not belong to him, nor could he in any manner dispose of it without the knowledge or  consent  of its  lawful  owner, and,  seeing that he died before his mother,  he could not  have succeeded  her in the enjoyment of the  said  portion of  land.

Apart from the foregoing,  Pedro Olang and  Doroteo Malahay, when  they were informed of the petition presented by Liberato Perez  asking for the possessory  information  already referred to, stated that they, as adjoining owners, agreed to the facts stated in the said petition, and that they had no  objection or claim to make in the matter. After the above statement made by  Olang in  April, 1895, it is not likely that he acquired from  Vicente Perez  the land covered by  said  information; this document was  attested by Malahay as municipal captain,  they knowing that it did not belong to the latter  but to  Liberato,  and in consequence Pedro Olang could not have transmitted any right to  his widow since he had not received any from Vicente Perez, his  supposed predecessor  in  the  possession of the estate.

The record does not show that Vicente Perez was ever in possession  of any portion of the  land covered by the possessory information, and consequently he could not transmit any  right to Pedro Olang, nor the right of possession to said  portion of the land.

The widow of the creditor Pedro Olang claims  to rest the right of the latter, and therefore her own  right, on the document marked "Exhibit A,"  dated January  15, 1895, wherein  it appears that  Vicente Perez declared to  have mortgaged to Pedro Olang for the sum of 100 pesos a parcel of land owned by him situated in the barrio of Looc, with a description of  its boundaries,  on  the  condition that he would continue to work it and obtain the benefits therefrom, but if it were not redeemed within a period of three years, that is to say on the 14th  of January, 1898, the land would then become the  property of the creditor.  The  document is a  private one,  and could not therefore be entered in the register,  and although it  has been attached  to the record of the case it does not appear that the signature  of Vicente Perez at the foot of the same was  offered in evidence or was duly identified.

The contract entered into by means of the said document is one of loan with mortgage; not one of sale under pacto de retro, because beyond the word  rescate  (redemption) said  document does not  contain any word to  show that the agreement was a sale a retro.

However, even if there were a doubt as to whether the contract entered into by Vicente Perez was one of mortgage or one of sale, on the hypothesis that he could dispose of the property, while it is riot possible  to decide the question by the language of the document, in justice it must be assumed that  the debtor assumed  a lesser obligation and that in accord with  the  creditor he bound  himself to  execute  a mortgage which involves a greater reciprocity of interests than a contract of sale under pacto de retro, in spite of the fact  that both the latter  and that of mortgage  involve  a valuable consideration in accordance with the provisions of article 1289 of the Civil Code,

On this supposition, in the absence of payment,  on the obligation becoming due the creditor would be entitled to have the  mortgaged property sold to satisfy the debt, but not to appropriate or dispose of it.  (Arts. 1857, 1858, and 1859, Civil Code.)

The land in question is comprised within a  larger tract of 30 hectares, referred  to in the possessory  information instituted at the request  of Liberato Perez in the court of the justice of the peace of Guiljungan and finally approved on the 7th of April, 1895, a date posterior to that of the above-mentioned document of mortgage in favor of Pedro Olang;  this information  was recorded in the registry of property on the 16th of the said month of April; and if the contract of mortgage  of  the 13th of January were a  true contract,  it can not be understood how Pedro Olang and Doroteo Malahay  made statements in  the month of April following in conformity  with the facts contained  in  said possessory information,  nor  can the declaration given by Higino  de la  Serna in said  information agree with  that made in this suit, as they are markedly opposed and  contradictory.  From all  of  the foregoing it is deduced  that the said document was prepared in order to somehow legalize the right which the widow of Pedro Olang believes she has to the land in question.

As was agreed  to in the aforesaid document, although the same be contrary to law, in  the absence of  payment of the 100 pesos  the mortgaged land could not become the property of the creditor until the 14th of January, 1898, that is, after the lapse  of three years, and in the meantime the debtor, Vicente Perez, was to continue in the possession and enjoyment of the fruits of the land; yet the defendants sought to prove that Pedro Olang or his  widow had been in possession of the property, as owner of the same, for the last nine or ten years, the result being that their witnesses testified to facts which were not true, undoubtedly for the purpose of legalizing the forcible usurpation  of the land in 1903.

The certified copy of the said information duly recorded in the registry of property is a public document, one which is protected by articles 390, 391, 393, and 394 of the Mortgage Law, and by sections 299 and 331 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and unless  it be proved  to be null or invalid, which has not been  done  by the defendants, it must  be sustained by the courts.

With respect to the legal capacity  of the plaintiffs  to bring this suit and appear therein, their respective rights are based on the provisions of section 115  of  the  Code of Civil Procedure, because it involves their own property, and their  respective husbands  have no personal rights or interest therein.

For the reasons above  set forth by which the errors assigned to the court below have been  refuted, it is our opinion that the judgment appealed from should be and is hereby  affirmed, and the defendants are ordered to vacate the land in question and deliver it to the plaintiffs, and to pay to  Inocenta  Perez the sum  of  P250 for  the  reasons stated in said judgment, with legal interest  thereon, and to pay the costs of this instance.   So ordered.

Johnson, Carson, and Moreland, JJ.,  concur.