September 1901 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1901 > September 1901 Decisions >
G.R. No. 18 September 12, 1901 - GAUDENCIO ELEIZEGUI v. JOSEFA. AREVALO
001 Phil 15:
001 Phil 15:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 18. September 12, 1901. ]
GAUDENCIO ELEIZEGUI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSEFA. AREVALO, Defendant-Appellant.
Eminio Gaudier, for Appellant.
Alfredo Chicote, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. REAL PROPERTY; MORTGAGE LAW; REGISTRATION OF TITLE. — Where the claimant’s title to property appears in a written document he can not invoke the aid of article 395 of the Mortgage Law, designed for the registration of titles not evidenced by writings.
2. ID.; ID. — Nor can such claimant proceed under article 437 of the general regulations for the execution of the Mortgage Law, which applies only to the registration of declarations of possession.
The plaintiff presented to the court below a petition asking for an order for the registration of certain real property situated in the city of Manila and claimed by him, and attached to his petition the deeds upon which he based his claim. The application was published in a newspaper of general circulation, and within the time limited in the order of publication Josefa Arevalo entered an appearance and made opposition to the petition with respect to one of the several parcels claimed, and in support of her claim presented a certificate showing the registration of her possessory rights to the realty in question. The court below held that the proof of possessory title presented by Josefa Arevalo was not sufficient to overcome the documents presented by the petitioner, and which showed a right or absolute dominion in him, and made an order directing the registrar to record the petitioner’s title. Against this order defendant appealed.
2. ID.; ID. — Nor can such claimant proceed under article 437 of the general regulations for the execution of the Mortgage Law, which applies only to the registration of declarations of possession.
The plaintiff presented to the court below a petition asking for an order for the registration of certain real property situated in the city of Manila and claimed by him, and attached to his petition the deeds upon which he based his claim. The application was published in a newspaper of general circulation, and within the time limited in the order of publication Josefa Arevalo entered an appearance and made opposition to the petition with respect to one of the several parcels claimed, and in support of her claim presented a certificate showing the registration of her possessory rights to the realty in question. The court below held that the proof of possessory title presented by Josefa Arevalo was not sufficient to overcome the documents presented by the petitioner, and which showed a right or absolute dominion in him, and made an order directing the registrar to record the petitioner’s title. Against this order defendant appealed.
D E C I S I O N
WILLARD, J. :
This case was initiated and carried on in reliance on the provisions of article 395 of the Mortgage Law. The article referred to applies only to cases in which the proprietor does not have a written title of ownership. The applicant holds a written title to the property described in his petition. Therefore he can not invoke the article referred to for the purpose of registering his ownership.
Article 437 of the General Regulations (Reglamento General) can not be invoked by the petitioner, since said article applies only to the registration of possession. It appears in the present case, moreover, that the written document evidencing the title of the petitioner was submitted to the court below attached to the petition.
The judgment appealed from should therefore be reversed. It is so ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Mapa and Ladd, JJ., concur.
Article 437 of the General Regulations (Reglamento General) can not be invoked by the petitioner, since said article applies only to the registration of possession. It appears in the present case, moreover, that the written document evidencing the title of the petitioner was submitted to the court below attached to the petition.
The judgment appealed from should therefore be reversed. It is so ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Cooper, Mapa and Ladd, JJ., concur.
