This was an action brought in the Court of First Instance of the Province  of La Union, for the purpose of recovering the possession of a parcel of land,  which is particularly described in paragraph 2 of the complaint, together with damages for its illegal detention.

After hearing the evidence, the lower  court found that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land in question, and ordered the defendant to deliver the possession of the same to them.  From that judgment the  defendant appealed to this court.

The only question presented by the appellant is one of fact.  From an  examination of the record brought to this court, while there is some conflict in the evidence, we believe that the following facts are fully sustained:

1. 
   
2. That in  the year  1902 or 1903, the plaintiffs  herein had some litigation  in the courts of the Province of La Union relating  to  the parcel of land in question with Geronimo and Isidro Ballas;  that that litigation resulted in favor of the  plaintiffs herein.
   
   
3. That the defendant,. Manuel Sabado, during the pendency of the litigation between the plaintiffs and Geronimo and Isidro Ballas, rendered the plaintiffs herein some assistance, the  exact nature and extent  of which does  not appear of record.
   
   
4. That soon after the termination of the litigation  between the plaintiffs herein and Geronimo and Isidro Ballas, in  order to compensate Manuel Sabado  for the services which he had rendered  them, the plaintiffs turned over to him  a portion of  the land  in  question, in order that he might cultivate it  and pay himself for his trouble out of the products of the land.  By virtue of an agreement,  the defendant was to  retain possession of the land three or four  years.  Later the plaintiffs demanded the possession of  the land of the  defendant, but he refused  to deliver  the possession of it to  them.
   
   
5. Later, or some time in the year 1907 or 1908, by mutual agreement,  the plaintiffs declared the land in question  for taxation, and have been paying the taxes upon  the  same since the year 1910.  It appears from the declaration of the parties, that soon after  the land was delivered to the defendant, he declared the same for the purpose of taxation.
   In  the year 1908, from the record it appears by an affidavit of  both Paulo Dilinila and the defendant  (see Exhibit C), that  the land in question was resold by the defendant to the plaintiffs.

The defendant attempted to show that the land had been sold to him in the  year 1902 by the plaintiffs in payment of a sum of money which he had loaned the plaintiffs.   That fact was stoutly denied by  the plaintiffs.  The  plaintiffs allege that the defendant had obtained the possession of the land  in question, in order that he might pay himself out of  the rents and profits, for  the services which he had rendered the plaintiffs in the litigation with the said Ballas. Whatever the method was by which the defendant obtained possession of the  land  in question,  we,think the record clearly demonstrates that he either promised  to return the same  to the plaintiffs or resold it to the plaintiffs (see Exhibit  C) and is no longer entitled to withhold the possession of the same from the plaintiffs.

From all of the foregoing, we think that a preponderance of the evidence adduced during: the trial of the cause clearly shows that the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the, land in question, and that the judgment of the lower court should be and is hereby affirmed, with costs.  So ordered.

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