Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > July 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1801 July 26, 1905 - EUSEBIA BROCE, ET AL. v. CATALINO BROCE

004 Phil 611:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1801. July 26, 1905. ]

EUSEBIA BROCE, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CATALINO BROCE, Defendant-Appellant.

Ledesma, Sumulong & Quintos, for Appellant.

Manuel Lopez, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. CIVIL PROCEDURE; EVIDENCE; PROOF OF OWNERSHIP; CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION. — The certificates of land registration is a public instrument and is sufficient and conclusive evidence of ownership in favor of the person named therein as owner.

2. CIVIL LAW; ESTOPPEL; OWNERSHIP. — B., The guardian of the plaintiffs, caused a certain parcel of land to be registered in the plaintiffs’ name and as their property, and during the proceedings instituted by him before obtaining such registry, he stated that the land in question had been purchased by his brother, the plaintiffs’ father, and that at his death it had been inherited pro-indiviso by his children, the plaintiffs. Held, That B. was estopped from denying the title of the plaintiffs to said land.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


Gregorio Broce died on the 16th day of August, 1889. The plaintiffs are his children, and the defendant is his brother. The only question in the case is, Are the plaintiffs the owners of the hacienda San Pedro, in the pueblo of Calatrava, in the Province of Occidental Negros, or is the defendant the owner?

The court below decided that the plaintiffs were the owners. The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that this decision was not justified by the evidence, and in this court the only question raised by the different assignments of error is, Did the evidence in the court justify this finding of fact made by the trial judge? It is simply a question concerning the weight of evidence.

After an examination of the evidence we are satisfied that it clearly preponderates in favor of the plaintiffs, and we adopt the following quotation from the decision of the court below:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sin hacer merito detallado de cada una de las pruebas practicadas por la parte demandante entiende que la certificacion del registro de inscripcion de la misma (la hacienda) que obra unida a los autos y que aparece extendida a nombre y en favor de los demandantes contituye prueba convincente a juicio de esta Corte de la principal pretension de los demandantes, y este juicio se funda no solo en el caracter publico de dicho documento cuya antiguedad data desde el 1. de Diciembre de 1890 o sea cuando habia ocurriddo apenas un ano el fallecimiento de Don Gregorio Broce, sino tambien y principalmente porque la informacion posesoria a que se refiere la inscripcion en el Registro de la Propiedad de que se ha hecho merito en orden a la finca en cuestion fue promovida nada menos y precisamente por el mismo D. Catalino Broce hoy demandado. En ella Catalino Broce expone paladinamente que al ocurrir la muerte de su hermano D. Gregorio Broce, este dejo varios hijos de los que fue nombrado tutor y curador, llamados Maximina, Eusebia Tranquilino, Emilio, Florentino, Dionisio, Juan y Margarita todos de apellido Broce y Apurado, a los cuales pertenece proindiviso la propiedad de un terreno de 300 cavanes en semilla e palay con los mismos linderos que se describen en la demanda, habiendo adquirido dicha finca su citado hermano por compra de varios duenos entre ellos de D. Carlos Apurado desde el ano 1880 en que aquel estuvo en quieta y pacifica posesion de la misma hasta que tuvo lugar su fallecimiento."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defendant at the trial gave two or three reasons why he caused this possessory information to be filed in the names of the plaintiffs, but the evidence which he adduced in support of these reasons did not establish any one of them. There was, moreover, other evidence in the case tending to support the claim of the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. After the expiration of twenty days judgment will be entered in conformity herewith, and the cause will be returned to the lower court for execution. So ordered.

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




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 1181 July 1, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENGRACIO VILLAFUERTE, ET AL.

    004 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 2229 July 1, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ROBERT MC MANN

    004 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 2302 July 1, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SARABIA

    004 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. 1671 July 3, 1905 - LEONARDO MEJIA v. ANTONIO ALIMORONG

    004 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 1715 July 3, 1905 - VICENTA INOCENCIO, ET AL. v. RAFAELA PAGUIA, ET AL.

    004 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 2160 July 7, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON GONZALES

    004 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. 1722 July 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. COATES

    004 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. 1759 July 15, 1905 - ALEJANRO MONTELIBANO v. EMILIO LEDESMA

    004 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. 1951 July 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO BADINES, ET. AL.

    004 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 1785 July 17, 1905 - SHANNON RICHMON v. FRANCISCO ANCHUELO

    004 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 1276 July 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. CANDELARIA DE LOS ANGELES, ET EL.

    004 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. 1511 July 26, 1905 - MIGUEL PASCUAL v. MACARIO ANGELES

    004 Phil 604

  • G.R. No. 1652 July 26, 1905 - MARIA TONGCO v. SABINO MANIO

    004 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. 1801 July 26, 1905 - EUSEBIA BROCE, ET AL. v. CATALINO BROCE

    004 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 2249 July 26, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. YU-TO CHAY

    004 Phil 613

  • G.R. No. 1239 July 28, 1905 - ANGELA P. JOAQUIN v. INOCENCIO ARAGON

    004 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 1666 July 28, 1905 - PAULA DE GUZMAN v. FIDEL RIVERA

    004 Phil 620

  • G.R. No. 1846 July 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO TAN

    004 Phil 625

  • G.R. No. 2097 July 29, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PAUL B. WEISS

    004 Phil 627