Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1915 > November 1915 Decisions > G.R. No. 10119 November 4, 1915 - MARIANO SEVERO P. TUASON v. MUNICIPALITY OF MARIQUINA

032 Phil 138:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 10119. November 4, 1915. ]

MARIANO SEVERO TUASON Y DE LA PAZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF MARIQUINA, Defendant-Appellant.

Benito Natividad, provincial fiscal of Rizal and Silvestre Apacible for Appellant.

Gilbert, Haussermann, Cohn & Fisher for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. REGISTRATION OF LAND; "LEGUA COMUNAL." — Held: Under the facts stated in the opinion, that the plaintiffs were entitled to have the land in question registered under the torrens system, and that, under the decision in the case of City of Manila v. Insular Government (10 Phil. Rep., 327) the defendant did not own any of the land in question, as a part of the legua comunal.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


The purpose of the present action was to obtain the registration, under the torrens system, of certain lands, which are particularly described in the complaint. The petition was presented in the Court of Land Registration on the 25th of September, 1911. To the registration of said lands there were numerous oppositions presented, the greater portion of which were withdrawn before the cause was brought on for trial.

After some amendments were made to the original petition, as well as to the original plans presented by the petitioner, the cause was finally brought on for trial. After hearing all of the parties, and after a careful consideration of all of the proof adduced during the trial, the Honorable Jesse George, one of the judges of the Court of Land Registration, in a very interesting and carefully prepared opinion in which he analyzed the facts and applied the law thereto, reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to have said lands registered under the torrens system, and so decreed.

From that decision the municipality of Mariquina appealed to this court and made several assignments of error. Without discussing in detail the particular assignments of error, it may be said that the appellant insists that it is the owner of two of the parcels of land included in the lands which the plaintiffs are seeking to have registered.

First: The defendant insists that it is the owner of a small parcel of said land upon which it had formerly constructed a municipal building; and

Second: That the legua comunal which belonged to it was included in the lands which the plaintiffs are seeking to have registered.

In the first place, while there is some proof that prior to the year 1882 there was a building which had been used by the municipality, located upon a small portion of the land in question, yet there is no proof that the land upon which said building was located belonged or ever did belong to the Appellant. And moreover said alleged municipal building was destroyed by a Baguio in 1882 and the appellant made no claim to the ownership of said parcel from that time up to the time of the presentation of its opposition in the present case. The record shows that said parcel of land had been occupied from or about the year 1882 by another person or persons, who had recognized the claim of the plaintiffs by paying rent therefor. There is not a scintilla of proof in the record justifying the claim made by the appellant to that portion of the land in question.

With reference to the alleged legua comunal, it may be said: (1) that the appellant made no effort, either in its opposition or during the trial of the cause, to definitely and accurately locate said legua comunal; and (2) the appellant made no effort to show that it had ever been conceded the legua comunal by any authority whatsoever.

In view of the decision of this court in the case of the City of Manila v. Insular Government (10 Phil. Rep., 327), and the discussion therein relating to the right of municipalities in relation of leguas comunales, we deem it un- necessary to discuss at length that question here.

With reference to the other assignments of error made by the appellant,-after a careful examination of the record, we are of the opinion that none of them, in any way or manner whatsoever, tend to show that the conclusion of the lower court was not in accordance with the evidence and the law; and, without a further discussion of the evidence and the law applicable to the present case, we are of the opinion and so hold that the judgment and decree of the lower court should be and is hereby affirmed, with cost. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Araullo, 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






November-1915 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9930 November 2, 1915 - FELIPE YANGO v. BARTOLOME ROMERO

    032 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. 10119 November 4, 1915 - MARIANO SEVERO P. TUASON v. MUNICIPALITY OF MARIQUINA

    032 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 10157 November 4, 1915 - E. C. MCCULLOUGH & GO. v. LUCENA ELECTRIC LIGHT

    032 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 10214 November 4, 1915 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. 10670 November 4, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. LI SUI WUN

    032 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 10935 November 4, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO E. VELAZQUEZ

    032 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 9963 November 5, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIA NEBRIDA,, ET AL.

    032 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 10174 November 5, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERINO PEREZ, ET AL.

    032 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 10012 November 9, 1915 - WALTER EASTON v. E. DIAZ & COMPANY, ET AL.

    032 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 10419 November 10, 1915 - FELIX LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO, ET AL.

    032 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 10533 November 11, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. DIONISIO ENRIQUEZ

    032 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 10659 November 11, 1915 - MACARIO LAVITORIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS, ET AL.

    032 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 9749 November 13, 1915 - MERCEDES CHINCHILLA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    032 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10027 November 13, 1915 - ROSENDO E. HERNAEZ v. MATEO E. HERNAEZ

    032 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. 10615 November 16, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO ZAMORA

    032 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. 9235 November 17, 1915 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, . v. STEAMSHIP "RUBI

    032 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. 8788 November 19, 1915 - ESTEBAN GASATAYA v. CHARLES J. FALLON

    032 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 10240 November 20, 1915 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 10476 November 20, 1915 - OSADA CARR v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION

    032 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9105 November 22, 1915 - IN RE: APOLONIA REMIGIO v. SANTIAGO ORTIGA

    033 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 9976 November 22, 1915 - OQUIÑENA & COMPANY v. JOSE MUERTEGUI, ET AL.

    032 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 10113 November 22, 1915 - ROMULO MERCADO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    032 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 10106 November 23, 1915 - ANTONIO DE LA RIVA v. RAFAEL MOLINA SALVADOR

    032 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 10278 November 23, 1915 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ROMANA VELASQUEZ, ET AL.

    032 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. 10093 November 24, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. LAZARO EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

    032 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 10185 November 24, 1915 - ANGEL GONZALEZ v. JEREMIAS J. HARTY, ET AL.

    032 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 11043 November 26, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. DORICA MANZANO, ET AL.

    032 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 8873 November 29, 1915 - FLORA INSON v. AGUSTIN BELZUNCE

    032 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 10362 November 29, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. LEON DIANA

    032 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 8242 November 30, 1915 - GREGORIO P. ACANTILADO v. MARCELINO DE SANTOS

    032 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 10402 November 30, 1915 - A. BUCHANAN v. PILAR A., VIUDA DE ESTEBAN

    032 Phil 363