This suit involves  the possession of a piece of land and the  issuance of an injunction.  The lower court decided the case in favor of the plaintiff and the defendants appealed from the judgment to this court.

The text of the judgment appealed  from, in the part thereof necessary  to quote, is as follows:

"The court finds that along in the year 1899 the plaintiff, Leon Caballero, obtained possession of  the said land and continued  possessing it until the year  1904.  Since  then, by mutual agreement between  him and  the defendants, he utilized the services of the latter for the cultivation of the said land, in the character of tenants on shares, the products obtained therefrom to be divided by halves.

"From  the year 1899 the defendants, in their capacity above expressed, cultivated the land in question  and sowed it to rice and, until the year 1904, shared its products with the plaintiff in the manner covenanted by them.

"The court finds that since the crop of the year 1905, the defendants, notwithstanding their continuing to cultivate the aforesaid land as  tenants on  shares of the plaintiff, refused until 1906 to give him the. part of the crop that corresponded to him and, taking advantage of the fact that they held  the land under their control as employees of the plaintiff, took possession of it, without the latter's consent and against his will, and refused not only to deliver to him the part of the products that corresponded to him during the said two years, but also to deliver to the plaintiff the possession of the land.

*       *        *       *       *        *      *
"The court finds that the crops mentioned (those of 1905 and  1906)  were regularly produced,  and that the plaintiff having  received as his share of the last crop, that  is, in the year 1904, some 60 cavanes of unhulled rice, the. share that should correspond to him of the crops appropriated by the defendants in the  two years mentioned ought to be adjusted according to the amount  of the last annual crop. The price of unhulled rice in the municipality of Minglanilla during the said two years was 3 pesos a cavan.  The most approximate calculation shows that Estefania Abellana obtained a crop of 60 cavanes the last year that she gave a share of it to the plaintiff, the half of which amount, or 30 cavanes, corresponded to the latter.   During the same period,  Serapio Mabunay ought to have delivered to  the plaintiff about  12  cavanes, Gervasio  Pakada  10 cavanes, and each one of the last two defendants 4 cavanes; and in this proportion they should have delivered  to the plaintiff annually his proper share  of the last two crops.

"The defendants allege in  their answer  that  they  hold exclusive possession of the  land  in question.  The court finds  that  they had  such  possession only in their capacity of laborers or tenants on  shares of the plaintiff.

"The plaintiff, Leon Caballero, in view of the facts set forth, is the  possessor of the land in  litigation; and  the defendants having taken such possession from him illegally and without any right, he should be  reinstated in the possession and exclusive usufruct of the said land.

*       *        *      *    *       *    *    *
"And as the defendants are impeding the plaintiff from cultivating the said land and from exercising over it all  the possessory  acts to which he is entitled, it is proper that this court issue in his favor a permanent injunction against  the defendants.

"By reason of all the foregoing,  and  in accordance with the findings of fact and law above  given, the court  orders that judgment be entered against the defendants, sentencing them to restore to the plaintiff the land at issue, as described in the complaint, and to deliver to the plaintiff 120 cavanes of unhulled rice in the  following  proportion: Estefania Abellana must deliver 60 cavanes; Serapio Mabunay, 24 cavanes; Gervasio Pakada, 20 cavanes; and each one of the last two defendants, 8 cavanes; and in the event of default, they shall pay to the plaintiff the equivalent  price therefor at the rate of 3 pesos a cavdn, in the proportion  indicated. The  costs of this action  shall be paid by the defendants severally and in solidum,  and it is further ordered that an injunction shall issue against the said defendants prohibiting them from this date from hindering the plaintiff in his work on the land in question  and his exercise over the same of any possessory acts whatsoever to which he has a right."

Having carefully  examined the  evidence,  we  find  that the weight thereof is not against the findings of facts recorded in the judgment appealed from, although the defendants also  presented evidence to support  their allegations. The judgment therefore must be affirmed,  since the  findings therein  contained are merely the legal  conclusions based upon the facts deemed to have been established.

The appellants, however, allege the following:

"According to the judgment appealed from, the acts negatory of the possessory right claimed by the plaintiff commenced, on the part of the  defendants,  in the year  1905, and as the action was instituted in January, 1907, this case undoubtedly falls under No. 4 of article 460 of the Civil Code, according to which the possessor may lose his possession by  the possession of another, if the new  possession has lasted for more than one year."

The true meaning of this legal provision has been already extensively discussed and  stated in  the case of The Bishop of Cebu vs. Mangaron  (6 Phil. Rep., 286).  In short, it was said therein that the provision mentioned refers to the possession de facto and not  possession de jure, wherefore it  is not applicable to the present case which involves the last-mentioned kind of possession.

The judgment  appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.