The purpose of the present action was to obtain possession of a small tract or parcel of land which is particularly described in paragraph  2 of the complaint.   The plaintiff prays for the possession  of the land,  as owner, together with the sum of P200, as damages for the illegal detention thereof.  The plaintiff claims that he is the  owner of the land in question by virtue  of the fact  that  he purchased the same at sheriff's  sale, under an  execution against the original owners, on the 16th of June, 1911.  The defendant claims that he is the owner of the land in question by virtue of a deed of sale executed and delivered to him by the original owners, on the 18th of  May, 1911.

After  hearing the evidence adduced  during the  trial of the cause, the Honorable Percy  M. Moir, judge, found that the defendant was the owner of the land in question and rendered a judgment relieving him from all liability under the complaint.

From that judgment the plaintiff appealed to this court. From an examination of the record, we think the following facts are proved by  a large preponderance of  the evidence:

First.  That some time prior  to  the 18th  of May,  1911, an action was commenced in the court of the  justice of the peace of the municipality of Malinao, by Chino Co Singo against Quirino Austero and his  wife, Januaria Ciencia, for a sum of money.

Second. That on the 18th of May, 1911, the said justice of the peace rendered a judgment  in favor of the plaintiff in said cause and against the defendants, for said  sum  of money.

Third. That an execution was issued upon  said judgment and was placed in the hands of the  sheriff who, at public auction on the 16th of June, 1911, sold to the plaintiff herein the land in question, for the sum of P244.18.

Fourth. That the original owners  (Quirino Austero and his wife, Januaria Ciencia)  not having redeemed the land in question within a period of twelve months, said sheriff, on the 7th of August, 1912, issued to the plaintiff herein a certificate of sale.

Fifth. That on the 18th of May, 1911, Januaria Ciencia, together with her husband, Quirino Austero, sold to the defendant herein the land in question for the purpose of paying a debt  which the defendant herein  held against them.   The deed of sale was executed and delivered on the 18th of May, 1911.  The same was acknowledged before a notary public on the 12th of October, 1911.

Sixth. That at the time of the sale of the land in question at public auction,  on  the 16th of June,  1911, the  sheriff was notified that the land did not belong to the said Quirino Austero and Januaria Ciencia, and that the same had been sold to the defendant herein, Bruno Monjardin.

Seventh. That at the  time of the  sale  to the  defendant herein  (May 18, 1911)  the said Quirino  Austero and his wife, Januaria Ciencia, were the owners of other property.

Eighth. That  on the 18th  of May,  1911, at the time the land in question was sold by Quirino  Austero and his wife, Januaria Ciencia, to the  defendant herein,  the former were legally indebted  to the latter in the sum of P800, and that the sale of the land was made for the purpose  of paying said indebtedness.

The  plaintiff-appellant alleges that the lower court committed an error in deciding that  the sale from Quirino Austero and Januaria Ciencia to the  defendant herein was not a fraudulent sale.  In reply to that contention, it may be said, in addition to the argument presented by the appellee in his brief, that  the plaintiff neither  alleged nor attempted to prove fraud, in relation to  the  transfer  of the land in question.  Of course, in the absence of an allegation of fraud in the complaint, the plaintiff could not prove it  if proper  objection were made.   While perhaps  there may be  a presumption  of  fraud  (art. 1297, Civil  Code) arising from the nature and character of the transfer or sale, yet, nevertheless, it is a rebuttable presumption and it may be shown that the same was made for a valuable consideration and in good faith.  Granting that the  appellant properly alleged fraud, we are of the opinion that even in that case, the proof adduced by the defendant shows, beyond question, that the  sale was a bona fide sale and that Qurino Austero and Januaria Ciencia had other  property, free from encumbrance,  subject to execution.

In view of all of the facts of the record  and considering that the defendant was a purchaser in good faith, for a valuable consideration, of the land  in  question,  and considering that he was a purchaser prior to  the purchase of the plaintiff and considering  that he entered into the possession of the land under and by virtue of said  purchase, we are of the opinion and so hold that the judgment of the lower  court should be and  is hereby affirmed, with costs. So  ordered.

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