Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > November 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 1284 November 10, 1905 - CITY OF MANILA v. JACINTO DEL ROSARIO

005 Phil 227:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1284. November 10, 1905. ]

THE CITY OF MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JACINTO DEL ROSARIO, Defendant-Appellant.

Francisco Rodriguez, for Appellant.

Modesto Reyes, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. ACTION; DISMISSAL; ERROR. — The defendant is entitled to have the case dismissed where the plaintiff fails to establish the allegations in the complaint; and an order overruling such motion is erroneous.

2. REALTY; POSSESSION; EVIDENCE. — Where one derives title to real estate from another, the declaration act, or omission of the latter to the property is evidence against the former only when made while the latter holds the title. (Sec. 278, Code of Civil Procedure.)

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; REGISTRATION; PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP. — A possessory information recorded in the property register is prima facie evidence of the fact that the person who instituted the proceedings holds the property as owner; and the presumption, under article 448 of the Civil Code, is that his title is good unless the contrary is shown.


D E C I S I O N


MAPA, J. :


This is an action to recover the possession of the two lots describe in the complaint, located in Calles Clavel and Barcelona, district of Tondo, at present occupied by the defendant.

The court below entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for possession and damages in the sum of $2,500, United States currency, and costs.

At the trial, after the plaintiff rested, the defendant moved for the dismissal of the case upon the ground that the plaintiff had failed to establish the allegations in the complaint. This motion was overruled by the court, to which ruling the defendant duly excepted. The question thus raised puts in issue the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff was entitled to the ownership and possession of the land in question. We accordingly hold that this point is impliedly involved in the third and fourth assignments of error.

Plaintiff introduced both documentary and oral evidence. The latter consisted of the testimony of John R. Lorenzo del Rosario, and Modesto Reyes, the city attorney. The first witness testified that he did not know of his own knowledge if the land in question belonged to the city (p. 11 of the bill of exceptions). The next witness testified that the land included in Calles Clavel and Barcelona was formerly part of Plaza Divisoria, which belonged to the Central Government (not the city), and that he did not know to whom it now belongs (pp. 12 and 13 of the bill of exceptions)). It must be borne in mind that this witness referred to the land included in Calles Clavel and Barcelona, and not to the lots described in the complaint. These lots abut upon the streets referred to, but do not form a part of either. According to the complaint, they are building lots.

The third witness, Juan Villegas, testified that the land in question was formerly included in the Gran Divisoria, and that all the land included in it belonged to the city. In this particular his testimony is at variance with that of the precediing witness, who testified that the land belonged to the Central Government. Villega’s testimony was merely hearsay. It consisted of what he had learned from some of the oldest residents in that section of the city. His testimony was introduced by the plaintiff apparently for the purpose of proving that the city was generally considered the owner of the land, drawing from this fact the presumption of actual ownership under paragraph 11, section 334, of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such testimony, however, does not constitute the "common reputation" referred to in the section mentioned. "common reputation," as used in that section, is equivalent to universal reputation. The testimony of this witness is not sufficient to establish the presumption referred to.

Furthermore, this witness stated that the land in Calle Azcarraga had been partitioned between the municipality and the Central Government, share and share alike, and that the Central Government (not the city) retained Calles Gabriel de Rivera and Barcelona, which are precisely the streets on which the property abuts (bill of exceptions, pp. 15 and 16).

The fourth witness (Sotera Roco) testified merely that Lorenzo del Rosario had paid 100 pesos to her brother Cipriano Roco for the purpose of instituting a possessory information as to the property abutting on Calle Clavel. It appears that Lorenzo del Rosario acquired the land from Cipriano Roco and sold it to his brother Jacinto del Rosario, the defendant in this case. Notwithstanding this, and assuming that the hearsay testimony of Sotera Roco is admissible, we do not see how it can be inferred from her testimony that the plaintiff is the real owner of the property.

The witness Modesto Reyes and Lorenzo del Rosario said nothing as to the ownership of the land. They simply testified as to the authenticity of some of the documentary evidence introduced by the plaintiff.

Of these documents the most important of all is the petition presented by Lorenzo del Rosario to the "mayor of the city of manila" on the 26th of September, 1891, and the letter written by him on the 9th of October, 1901, to the Municipal Board of Manila. Lorenzo del Rosario in his testimony, admitted the authenticity of both documents which contain an offer to the municipality of Manila to purchase the land on Calle Clavel. Lorenzo del Rosario admitted also that he signed the first document under the misapprehension that the land belonged to the city, but that he had been subsequently informed by some of the city officials that the land did not belong to the municipality, but to Cipriano Roco y Vera. He stated that he signed the second document because the President of the Municipal Board, Señor Herrera, advised him to do so in order to avoid litigation with the city. His testimony in this respect was not contradicted. We accordingly hold that the provisions of section 346 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the case at bar in so far as they declare that an offer of compromise is not admissible in evidence.

Again, Lorenzo del Rosario signed the first document before he acquired from Cipriano Roco y Vera the ownership of the land referred to therein, the second document being signed after he had transferred the land to the defendant Jacinto del Rosario, who took possession of the same and had it registered, as the plaintiff admits (par. 2 of the complaint), on the 23d of February, 1893. If this is so, whatever statements Lorenzo del Rosario might have made in the documents mentioned, they are not binding upon the defendant, because, under section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure, "where one derives title to real property from another, the declaration, act, or omission of the latter, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former only when made while the latter holds the title."cralaw virtua1aw library

The plaintiff also introduced in evidence a map of the city of Manila. This map is not before us. It is sufficient to say, in order to show that it has no value as evidence, that the reliability of the map was not proven at the trial. The only witness examined with regard to it was the city attorney. He was unable to say who made it or who caused it to be made, or when it was made. He said only that he believed the map had been drawn in the month of July, 1880, or prior to May, 1893. Neither this nor his statement that the map was found among the archives of the city of Manila is of itself sufficient to show that the map is authentic. No one appears to certify as to its correctness.

The map identified by the witness John R. Wilson was introduced by the plaintiff for the sole purpose of showing the location of the land in question. It has, therefore, no value in establishing the right of possession claimed by the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the two public instruments executed on March 7, 1900, between the defendant and Telesfora Apostol y Perea, also introduced in evidence by the plaintiff, show that the defendant was in possession of the land under a good title and with the status of owner of the land. In the first instrument if is stated so many words that the defendant is the owner in fee simple of the land, he having repurchased it from Liberio de Aurteneche y Menchacatorre, whose title had been recorded in the property register.

From the foregoing it appears that the evidence introduced by the plaintiff does not prove its claim of title to the land in question. Neither the testimony of the witnesses presented by the plaintiff nor the documentary evidence introduced show that the city of Manila is the owner of the land, or that it has a right to its possession as claimed in the complaint. Some of the documents introduced, as well as the two public instruments referred to as having been executed in 1900, tended to support the contentions of the defendant rather than those of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the plaintiff itself admits in the complaint that the defendant’s possession of the land in Calle Barcelona was recorded since March, 1901, and his possession of that in Calle Clavel since February, 1893. This shows that the defendant had been in the adverse possession of the land. According to article 448 of the Civil Code he must be presumed to hold under a just title, unless the contrary is shown.

In view of the foregoing, we hold that the defendant had a perfect right to ask for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to establish the allegations in the complaint, and the court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss.

The order of the trial court overruling the motion of the defendant to dismiss and the judgment appealed from are hereby reversed. Let the case be remanded to the court of its origin for action in accordance herewith. The plaintiff shall pay the costs of the Court of First Instance. No special order is made as to the costs on appeal. After the expiration of twenty days from the date hereof let judgment be entered in conformity herewith. So ordered.

Torres, Johnson, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.

Arellano, C.J., did not sit in this case.




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






November-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 1207. November 2, 1905.] PIA BASA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. JOSE CLARO ARQUIZA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1497. November 2, 1905.] TOMANA VERA MOGUER, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. RITA JUAN CARBALLO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 2206. November 2, 1905.] MANUEL GASPAR, Plaintiff-Appellees, vs. JUAN B. MOLINA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2263. November 2, 1905.] CIPRIANO SANIDAD, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SIMON CABOTAJE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2304. November 3, 1905.] EL BANCO ESPA�OL-FILIPINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. FULGENCIO TAN-TONGCO, ET AL., Defendant-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1078. November 7, 1905.] JOHN W. HOEY, Petitioner, vs. R.C. BALDWIN, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 1791. November 7, 1905.] EMILIO BUENO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LA COMPANIA MINAS DE CARBON DE BATAN, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2089. November 7, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ENRIQUE RIJANO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2297. November 7, 1905.] CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN, administrator of the estate of Teodoro Patricio, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. MANUEL G. ESPINOSA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1341. November 8, 1905.] URSULA LIQUETE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EULALIO DARIO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1528. November 10, 1905.] JOSE ENRIQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. AURORA BARRIO, guardian of her minor children, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1975. November 10, 1905.] THE CITY OF MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 2296. November 10, 1905.] J.F. WRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LA COMPANIA DE TRANVIAS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2322. November 10, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BASILISO BASTAS and DIONISIO DE LA SERNA, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2332. November 10, 1905.] MIGUEL EVANGELISTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. TRANQUILINO BASCOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1308. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PEDRO GIRON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1642. November 11, 1905.] JUAN NOEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIANO LASALA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2008. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EUGENIO PAGDAYUMAN ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2184. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. APOLONIO PALANCA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2371. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO AUSTRIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2425. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff and Appellees, vs. The Chinaman UN CHE SAT, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2444. November 11, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MAXIMO CAGARA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1440. November 14, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, complainant-Appellee, vs. C.M. JENKINS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2773. November 14, 1905.] HARRY J. COLLINS, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. G.N. WOLFE, Warden of Bilibid Prison, Respondent-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1898. November 15, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. WILLIAM B. BALLENTINE, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 2121. November 15, 1905.] THE PHILIPPINE SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ANTONIO IRIBAR, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1465. November 17, 1905.] ALFREDO CHANCO, administrator of the estate of Maximo Madrilejos, et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • [G.R. No. 1789. November 17, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. APOLONIO DE OCAMPO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2125. November 15, 1905.] PEDRO IBA�EZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANA ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2631. October 21, 1905.] EDWIN H. WARNER, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. 771 OBJECTORS, Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 2019. November 20, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTONIO FORMENTOS, ET AL, Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 1165. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RUFINO FELIPE, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1261. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PACIANO ANONUEVO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1647. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ADAUCTO OCAMPO, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2289. November 21, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOE HUTCHINSON, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 1693. November 22, 1905.] FRANCISCO MARTINEZ GARCIA, Petitioner, vs. JOHN S. SWEENEY, judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Respondent.

  • [G.R. No. 2436. November 22, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GUILLERMO MAZA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • [G.R. No. 2153. November 23, 1905.] H. FRANKEL AND W.L. WRIGHT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. M.A. CLARKE, Defendant-Appellee.

  • [G.R. No. 1036. November 25, 1905.] THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. REGINO VALENCIA, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

  • [G.R. No. 1696. November 27, 1905.] VICENTA RODRIGUEZ, administratrix of the estate of Lorenza Rodriguez, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIANO LANALA, Defendant-Appellant.

  • G.R. No. 1207 November 2, 1905 - PIA BASA v. JOSE CLARO ARQUIZA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 187

  • G.R. No. 1497 November 2, 1905 - TOMANA VERA MOGUER v. RITA JUAN CARBALLO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. 2206 November 2, 1905 - MANUEL GASPAR v. JUAN B. MOLINA

    005 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. 2263 November 2, 1905 - CIPRIANO SANIDAD v. SIMON CABOTAJE

    005 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 2304 November 3, 1905 - EL BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO v. FULGENCIO TAN-TONGCO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 208

  • G.R. No. 1078 November 7, 1905 - JOHN W. HOEY v. R.C. BALDWIN

    005 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 1791 November 7, 1905 - EMILIO BUENO v. LA COMPAÑIA MINAS DE CARBON DE BATAN

    005 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. 2089 November 7, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ENRIQUE RIJANO

    005 Phil 215

  • G.R. No. 2297 November 7, 1905 - CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN v. MANUEL G. ESPINOSA

    005 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. 1341 November 8, 1905 - URSULA LIQUETE v. EULALIO DARIO

    005 Phil 221

  • G.R. No. 1284 November 10, 1905 - CITY OF MANILA v. JACINTO DEL ROSARIO

    005 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 1528 November 10, 1905 - JOSE ENRIQUEZ v. AURORA BARRIO

    005 Phil 232

  • G.R. No. 1975 November 10, 1905 - CITY OF MANILA v. EL MONTE DE PIEDAD Y CAJA DE AHORROS DE MANILA

    005 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 2296 November 10, 1905 - J.F. WRIGHT v. LA COMPAÑIA DE TRANVIAS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 242

  • G.R. No. 2322 November 10, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BASILISO BASTAS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 251

  • G.R. No. 2332 November 10, 1905 - MIGUEL EVANGELISTA v. TRANQUILINO BASCOS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. 1308 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO GIRON

    005 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 1642 November 11, 1905 - JUAN NOEL v. MARIANO LASALA

    005 Phil 260

  • G.R. No. 2008 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. EUGENIO PAGDAYUMAN, ET AL.

    005 Phil 265

  • G.R. No. 2184 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO PALANCA

    005 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 2371 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO AUSTRIA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 2425 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. UN CHE SAT

    005 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 2444 November 11, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO CAGARA

    005 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 1440 November 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. C.M. JENKINS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 2773 November 14, 1905 - HARRY J. COLLINS v. G.N. WOLFE

    005 Phil 285

  • G.R. No. 1898 November 15, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM B. BALLENTINE

    005 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. 2121 November 15, 1905 - PHIL. SUGAR ESTATES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. ANTONIO IRIBAR

    005 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 1465 November 17, 1905 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. 1789 November 17, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. APOLONIO DE OCAMPO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. 2125 November 15, 1905 - PEDRO IBAÑEZ v. ANA ORTIZ

    005 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 2019 November 20, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO FORMENTOS, ET AL

    005 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. 1165 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO FELIPE

    005 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 1261 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. PACIANO ANONUEVO

    005 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 1647 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. ADAUCTO OCAMPO

    005 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 2289 November 21, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOE HUTCHINSON

    005 Phil 343

  • G.R. No. 1693 November 22, 1905 - FRANCISCO MARTINEZ GARCIA v. JOHN S. SWEENEY

    005 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 2436 November 22, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO MAZA

    005 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. 2153 November 23, 1905 - H. FRANKEL, ET AL. v. M.A. CLARKE

    005 Phil 348

  • G.R. No. 1036 November 25, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. REGINO VALENCIA

    005 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. 1696 November 27, 1905 - VICENTA RODRIGUEZ v. MARIANO LANALA

    005 Phil 357