Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > February 1907 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3229 February 27, 1907 - ARSENIO DE LA ROSA v. MARIANO ARENAS

007 Phil 556:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-3229. February 27, 1907. ]

ARSENIO DE LA ROSA, administrator of the estate of Natalio, and Catalino Regalado, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARIANO ARENAS, Defendant-Appellee.

Fernando Salas and Smith & Hargis, for Appellant.

Ramon Salinas, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. REALTY; PRESCRIPTION; SUFFICIENT OF PROOF. — Held, That there was evidence to support the finding that the defendant had become the owner of the land it question by thirty years’ occupation.

2. ID.; ID.; JUDGMENT; REVERSAL. — The answer alleged as a defense the ordinary period of prescription. Held, That a judgment for the defendant would not be reversed on account of this variance, as an amendment of the answer, if such amendment were necessary, could be made in this court.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


There was evidence in this case to establish the following facts:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Rufino Regalado was the owner of the land in question on the 5th of December, 1864; on that day he executed his will, by which he made his brothers Catalino Regalado and Natalio Regalado his universal heirs, appointing them also his executors. In his will he acknowledged an indebtedness of 800 pesos to his wife, Gerarda Yap-Subco. He also gave her a legacy of 400 pesos. It appears from the will that he left other property besides the house in question, in which he and his wife lived at the time of his death, which took place soon after the will was made and before the 5th day of January, 1865. It does not appear that he left any heirs in the ascending or descending line. Upon his death, the executors administered the estate; including the property here in question; the rents being collected during that time for the executors, by Bernabe Perez, who was called in the will of the testator his adopted son, and who, with his wife, Placida Arriola, lived in a house of the property. Three years after the death of the testator the rents were paid by Bernabe Perez to the widow Gerarda Yap-Subco, and from that time that is, from the year 1867 Perez was in possession of the property as the representative of the widow; she receiving the income thereof during all of that time. Upon her death, Francisca Binarao succeeded her in the ownership of the property, and Francisca on the 27th day of July, 1896, by a public document, sold and conveyed it to the defendant who has been in possession thereof since that date.

This action was commenced on the 16th day of February, 1905, by the plaintiff as administrator of the estates of Natalio Regalado and Catalino Regalado.

It is thus seen that since 1867, the property has been continuously occupied by the defendant, and the persons under whom he claims. This covers a period of almost forty years, and the court below held that the defendant was the owner of the property by virtue of the extra-ordinary period of prescription of thirty years. The findings of the court, upon this point, are not manifestly and plainly against the weight of the evidence, and they therefore can not be disturbed by us. (De la Rama v. De la Rama, 201 U. S. 303.)

It is claimed by the appellant in his brief in this court that there is no evidence to show that the widow of Rufino Regalado occupied the property as owner. In determining the character of her occupation, the court was entitled to take into consideration all of the circumstances of the case. One of these circumstances was the fact that since 1867, neither Catalino Regalado nor Natalio Regalado, nor any one of their heirs, some of whom lived near the property, ever made any claim whatever thereto until the commencement of this action, and the institution of this action was due to the circumstance that the plaintiff, being an employee of the Bureau of Archives, happened one day in December, 1904, when looking over the documents, to read the will of Rufino Regalado above referred to.

There was evidence to show that the widow occupied the property as owner, and that Francisco Binarao succeeded to the ownership thereof as her heir. Whether the proof to the contrary preponderates against this evidence is not for us to determine, as has before been stated.

The findings of the court below upon the subject of the extraordinary prescription being sustained, it is not necessary to consider whether the finding in regard to a partition of the property is sustained or not, as the former finding is decisive of the case.

The answer, alleged as a defense, was the ordinary prescription, and it is claimed by the appellant that the finding upon the subject of the period of extraordinary prescription were improper. In view of the provisions of sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to amendment of pleadings, this contention can not avail the Appellant. In an amendment to the answer were necessary, this court, by the provisions of said sections, has power to now make it.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with costs of this instance against the Appellant. After expiration of twenty days let judgment be rendered in accordance herewith, and ten days thereafter let the case be remanded to the lower court for proper action. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, 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






February-1907 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3150 February 1, 1907 - CIRILA DOMINGO v. ANTONIO OSORIO

    007 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-3088 February 6, 1907 - EL BANCO ESPAÑOL-FILIPINO v. JAMES PETERSON

    007 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. L-3148 February 6, 1907 - ENRIQUE MA. BARRETTO v. CITY OF MANILA

    007 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-3225 February 6, 1907 - BEHN v. W. H. MITCHELL

    007 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. L-1210 February 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FILOMENO APURADO

    007 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-2409 February 7, 1907 - IN RE: FELIPE G. CALDERON

    007 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-3086 February 7, 1907 - MITSUI BUSSAN KAISHA v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    007 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. L-3240 February 8, 1907 - PABLO TRINIDAD v. LUCAS RICAFORT

    007 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-3019 February 9, 1907 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINA v. VICENTE ARAZA

    007 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. L-3176 February 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. C. M. PENDLETON

    007 Phil 457

  • G.R. No. L-3246 February 9, 1907 - CADWALLADER & CO. v. SMITH

    007 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. L-3253 February 9, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. E. S. JOCKERS

    007 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-3345 February 9, 1907 - JUAN HERNANDEZ TIO-QUINCHUAN v. MANUEL LIM

    007 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-3070 February 11, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN CABILING

    007 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-3346 February 13, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO DIMITILLO

    007 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. L-2001 February 14, 1907 - SALVADOR PANGANIBAN v. AGUSTIN CUEVAS

    007 Phil 477

  • G.R. No. L-2963 February 14, 1907 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. CITY OF MANILA

    007 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. L-3462 February 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. SANTACRUZ DURUELO

    007 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. L-2973 February 18, 1907 - JUAN MUYCO v. PEDRO MONTILLA ET AL

    007 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. L-3199 February 21, 1907 - ANGEL ORTIZ v. LA COMPAÑIA MARITIMA

    007 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. L-3390 February 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CIRIACO NUECA

    007 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-3305 February 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PILAR JAVIER

    007 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. L-3347 February 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ALVARO PADLAN

    007 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. L-3371 February 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO BUENCONSEJO

    007 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. L-3380 February 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON SCHNEER

    007 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. L-3650 February 23, 1907 - MARGARITA TORIBIO v. MODESTA TORIBIO

    007 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-3066 February 25, 1907 - H. L. HEATH v. STEAMER "SAN NICOLAS

    007 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. L-3351 February 25, 1907 - ANG SENG QUEN v. JUAN TE CHICO

    007 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. L-2938 February 26, 1907 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GRACIANO PUNZALAN

    007 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. L-3444 February 26, 1907 - CITY OF MANILA v. CHENG Y CHIANG

    007 Phil 550

  • G.R. No. L-2962 February 27, 1907 - B. H. MACKE v. JOSE CAMPS

    007 Phil 553

  • G.R. No. L-3229 February 27, 1907 - ARSENIO DE LA ROSA v. MARIANO ARENAS

    007 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. L-3255 February 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. CANDIDO ULAT

    007 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-3298 February 27, 1907 - FELISA NEPOMUCENO, ET AL. v. GENARO HEREDIA

    007 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-3007 February 28, 1907 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH v. MUNICIPALITY OF BADOC

    007 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-3135 February 28, 1907 - E. M. BACHRACH v. JAMES J. PETERSON

    007 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. L-3402 February 28, 1907 - JOSE ITURRALDE v. FRANCISCA ALFONSO

    007 Phil 576