Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > January 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 1449 January 5, 1906 - VICENTE GOMEZ GARCIA, ET AL. v. JACINTA HIPOLITO, ET AL.

005 Phil 503:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 1449. January 5, 1906. ]

VICENTE GOMEZ GARCIA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JACINTA HIPOLITO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Manuel Torres, for Appellants.

Jos. N. Wolfson, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. POSSESSORY INFORMATION TITLES; PRESCRIPTION. — A possessory title obtained when the claimed is not in actual possession, the actual occupant holding by adverse title, is not authorized by law and is absolutely null and void, even when registered, except in so far as the rights of third persons may be affected. (Lim Chingco v. Terariray, 3 Off, Gaz., 687.)


D E C I S I O N


CARSON, J. :


Both the plaintiffs and defendants claim title to and ownership of the property described in the complaint by virtue of peaceable, adverse, and continuous possession for the period of prescription provided by law.

The defendants proved at the trial that they and their ancestors through whom they claim title have been in actual and uninterrupted possession for more than thirty years, but the plaintiffs allege that while the defendants may have been in actual possession for many years, they held the property by virtue of a verbal lease entered into between plaintiffs’ grandmother, Jacinta Salamanca, and the defendants and their ancestors, and that under the terms of this contract the defendants paid rent at the rate of 2 pesos per month until the year 1897, when plaintiffs’ father died, since which date the defendants have failed the terms of the said rental contract.

In addition to the testimony touching the alleged rental contract the plaintiffs introduced a certificate of inscription of a possessory title in their favor, in the real estate register for the northern district of Manila, dated February 19, 1901, and based on a possessory information approved on January 18, 1901, by the Court of First Instance of Quiapo.

We think the evidence in the record sustains the finding of the trial court that the plaintiffs failed to establish the execution of the alleged rental contract and the existence of the alleged relation of landlord and tenant between themselves and the defendants, and, this contention having been disposed of, the only further question for consideration is the validity of their alleged possessory title and the legal effect of its inscription in the real estate registry.

It is contended that the defendants should not have been permitted to attack the plaintiff’s duly uninscribed possessory title nor to introduce evidence to sustain an uninscribed title to the property in conflict therewith.

The record upon which the plaintiff’s possessory title was based was approved on January 18, 1901, and at that time the plaintiffs were not in possession, and the land was actually occupied by the defendants, who held it under an adverse claim of title, as appears from the allegations of the plaintiffs themselves in the amended complaint in this action, wherein they allege that since "the 3d of September, 1897, to this date, the defendants have refused to pay rent, or to recognize the plaintiffs as the legal owners of the property."cralaw virtua1aw library

A possessory title, obtained as was the plaintiff’s when the claimant is not in the actual possession of the property, the actual occupant holding by an adverse title and not claiming through the applicant, is not authorized by law, and is absolutely null and void. (Title XIV of the Mortgage Law.)

Under the provisions of article 33 of the Mortgage Law "the second of instruments or contracts which are null in accordance with the law are not validated thereby," and this provision is modified only when the rights of third persons interview, in which case such rights are protected by the provisions of article 34.

The alleged possessory title in this case was procured on behalf of the plaintiffs and inscribed in the real estate record in their name, and the defendants, who were in possession under the above claim of title, were not parties to those proceedings. Therefore the provisions of article 34 can have no application in this case, and while it may be true that if the defendants desire hereafter to enter any document touching this property in the land register it may be necessary to take the proper proceedings for the cancellation of the above-mentioned entry in favor of the plaintiffs, nevertheless the trial court did not err in permitting them to prove the invalidity of the document on which the plaintiffs relied in this action. (Lim-Chingco v. Terariray, 1 No. 2123, October 3, 1905, 3 Off. Gaz., 687.)

We do not deem it necessary to discuss the finding of the trial court, that ten years’ uninterrupted possession is sufficient to give title by prescription, as the evidence fully sustains a finding that in this case the possession continued for the full period of thirty years, as provided in article 1959 of the Civil Code.

The plaintiffs having failed to establish their title the property in question, and the defendants having proven that they have been in uninterrupted possession thereof for more than thirty, years, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellants.

After twenty days judgment will be entered in accordance herewith, and the case remanded to the court wherein it originated for proper action. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Johnson and Willard, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Page 120, supra.




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






January-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2070 January 2, 1906 - W.H. TIPTON v. RAMON A. MARTINEZ

    005 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. 2227 January 2, 1906 - MAXIMINO ESPIRITU v. JOSE LUIS

    005 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 3021 January 2, 1906 - LEONISA YTURRALDE, ET AL. v. ALBINO SANTOS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 2030 January 4, 1906 - ALFRED DAVID OEHLERS v. ROBERT HARTWIG

    005 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. 2050 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ROHILLA MARU

    005 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. 2236 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NETA SHIYOKISHI

    005 Phil 495

  • G.R. No. 2397 January 4, 1906 - LO SUI v. HARDEE WYATT

    005 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. 2555 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES SALAZAR

    005 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 2567 January 4, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. GERMAN DE TORRES, ET AL.

    005 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 1449 January 5, 1906 - VICENTE GOMEZ GARCIA, ET AL. v. JACINTA HIPOLITO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 2021 January 5, 1906 - ANICETO LORENZO v. JOSE NAVARRO

    005 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. 2151 January 6, 1906 - SALVADOR BROCAL v. JUAN VICTOR MOLINA

    005 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. 2178 January 6, 1906 - SONS OF ISIDRO DE LA RAMA v. TEODORO BENEDICTO

    005 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. 1973 January 8, 1906 - TAN DIANGSENG TAN SUI PIC v. LUCIO ECHAUZ TAN SUICO

    005 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. 2542 January 8, 1906 - MARGARITA TORIBIO, ET AL. v. MODESTA TORIBIO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 2587 January 8, 1906 - CARMELO FLOR BAGO v. DOMINGA GARCIA

    005 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 1993 January 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM GEORGE HOLLIS

    005 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. 1994 January 11, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM GEORGE HOLLIS

    005 Phil 531

  • G.R. No. 2038 January 13, 1906 - A.M. ESSABHOY v. SMITH, BELL & CO.

    005 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 2235 January 15, 1906 - THOMAS PEPPERELL v. B.F. TAYLOR

    005 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. 2244 January 18, 1906 - LEONCIO PANAGUITON v. JAMES J. WATKINS

    005 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 1641 January 19, 1906 - GERMAN JABONETA v. RICARDO GUSTILO, ET AL.

    005 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 2253 January 19, 1906 - MARIANO GARCIA MARTINEZ v. CORDOBA & CONDE

    005 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 2260 January 19, 1906 - PAULA ROCO v. ESTEFANIA R. VILLAR

    005 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 2345 January 19, 1906 - ROBERT M. LOPER v. STANDARD OIL COMPANY

    005 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 2586 January 19, 1906 - TOMAS GUISON v. MARIA CONCEPCION

    005 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 2580 January 20, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO SEVILLA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. 1810 January 22, 1906 - J.W. MARKER v. EULOGIO GARCIA

    005 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 2239 January 22, 1906 - WILLIAM GITT v. MOORE & HIXSON

    005 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 2300 January 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO MALLARI

    005 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. 2606 January 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO DE LOS SANTOS

    005 Phil 565

  • G.R. No. 2426 January 24, 1906 - FERNANDO MONTANO LOPEZ v. PEDRO MARTINEZ ILUSTRE

    005 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 2597 January 24, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN GLEFONEA

    005 Phil 570

  • G.R. No. 2285 January 25, 1906 - FREDERICK GARFIELD WAITE v. WILLIAMS, CHANDLER & CO.

    005 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 2295 January 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO CRUZ

    005 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 2323 January 31, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. NATIVIDAD PAREJA

    005 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. 2387 January 31, 1906 - OLIVER & TRILL v. W.E. SHERMAN

    005 Phil 577