Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > December 1907 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3826 December 7, 1907 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. JUANA VALENCIA

009 Phil 322:



[G.R. No. L-3826. December 7, 1907. ]

CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUANA VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

Ramon Diokno, for Appellant.

Rafael Palma, for Appellee.


1. REALTY; TITLE BY PRESCRIPTION. — For more than forty years defendant was in possession of the land in controversy. She took possession, however, under a deed which conveyed to her only the building thereon and the improvements, but not the land. Held, That, as she did not occupy the land in the character of owner, she could not acquire title thereto by prescription.



This is the second time this case has appeared here. The first appeal is reported in Volume V, page 182, of the Philippine Reports.

The evidence presented by the plaintiff to show her ownership of the land in question is the same evidence presented in the case of Carmen Ayala de Roxas v. Agapita Maglonso 1 (4 Off. Gaz., 459). We there held that such evidence was sufficient. We see no reason for changing our views upon that subject.

The defendant and appellant claims that the tract of land occupied by her is not included in the large tract of land described in the plaintiff’s deeds. We think that the contrary appears, not only from the admissions made in the answer of the defendant but also from the admissions made at the trial, to the effect that the tract of land occupied by her is included in the plan offered in the evidence in the court below. Comparing that plan with the certificate of the registry of property, we think that it shows that it is a plan of the land described in the plaintiff’s deeds. That the tract of land claimed by the defendant is situated in the middle of the land shown in this plan is apparent from an examination thereof.

The principal question in the case is whether or not the defendant has acquired title to the tract of land occupied by her by adverse possession or not. That she has been in possession of the same since the 7th of December, 1858, is admitted. The only question is whether she occupied the land as owner or whether she was there by mere tolerance of the plaintiff. This question must be determined by reference to the document under which she entered into possession. That document is a contract made between her and German Bate on the date last mentioned. It is claimed by the defendant that contract conveyed to her the land in question, as well as the house situated thereon. It is claimed by the plaintiff that it was only a conveyance of the house and the improvements, and was not a conveyance of the land. After careful examination of the document, we adopt the view of the plaintiff. Nowhere in express terms does this instrument convey the land. It contains the following

"German Bate has sought and is seeking to sell the house and the improvements on his lot . . . as he did actually sell to Juana Valencia the above said house and improvements on said land; . . . states that the sum of one hundred pesos is the true and reasonable value and price of said improvements and building . . . and that the above-cited improvements and building are free; . . . henceforth conveys and cedes to the purchaser the title and the right of possession which he has and may have on the said hose and improvements."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the same day, apparently, the purchaser, the defendant in this case, caused the gobernadorcillo to put her in possession, and it is said that the record of this act indicates that she was put in possession of the ground as well as of the house and improvements. It is true that she asked for the measurement and boundaries of the lot and that she be protected in the possession of it. It is also true that the gobernadorcillo measured the ground and caused her to walk about it and to execute acts of dominion over it, such as were customary in such proceedings, but it appears that, when he made his final declaration as to the property of which she thereby became the owner, he states that it was the improvements and the house, and nothing is said about her being the owner of the land.

No title by prescription can be acquired unless the person claiming the same occupied the land as the owner. We hold in this case that the defendant did not occupy this land as owner, but was there by the mere tolerance of the plaintiff, and, consequently, that she, the defendant, has not acquired the ownership thereof.

What was said in the decision in the case of Carmen Ayala de Roxas v. Agapita Maglonso, above mentioned, is applicable to this case, so far as it relates to occupation by permission of the owner.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., dissent.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

December-1907 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4338 December 2, 1907 - ALFRED B. JONES v. J. E. HARDING

    009 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-3738 December 3, 1907 - JOSE ACOSTA v. ANDRES DOMINGO

    009 Phil 290


    009 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-3935 December 4, 1907 - UY PIAOCO v. SERGIO OSMENA

    009 Phil 299

  • G.R. No. L-3378 December 5, 1907 - JOSE CASTAÑO v. CHARLES S. LOBINGIER

    009 Phil 310


    009 Phil 319

  • G.R. No. L-3826 December 7, 1907 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. JUANA VALENCIA

    009 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. L-3847 December 7, 1907 - LEOPOLDO FERRER v. RAMON NERI ABEJUELA

    009 Phil 324

  • G.R. No. L-3704 December 12, 1907 - LA COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. FRANCISCO MUÑOZ

    009 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. L-3895 December 14, 1907 - In the matter of A. K. JONES

    009 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. L-3899 December 16, 1907 - ALFREDO CHANCO v. ANACLETA MADRILEJOS

    009 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. L-3933 December 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO SAN ANDRES

    009 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. L-3959 December 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FLORENCIO PARAS

    009 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. L-3972 December 16, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO GUANZON

    009 Phil 371

  • G.R. No. L-3596 December 17, 1907 - LUCHSINGER & CO. v. CORNELIO MELLIZA

    009 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. L-3128 December 19, 1907 - UN PAK LEUNG v. JUAN NIGORRA

    009 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-3128 December 19, 1907 - UN PAK LEUNG v. JUAN NIGORRA

    009 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-3688 December 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOHN HAZLEY

    009 Phil 384

  • G.R. No. L-3891 December 19, 1907 - ELENA MORENTE v. GUMERSINDO DE LA SANTA

    009 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-3505 December 20, 1907 - ARCADIO MAXILOM v. GAUDENCIO TABOTABO

    009 Phil 390

  • G.R. No. L-3980 December 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO GOROSPE, ET AL.

    009 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-4061 December 20, 1907 - MANUEL TAGUINOT v. MUNICIPALITY OF TANAY

    009 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. L-3483 December 21, 1907 - BENITO MOJICA v. JUANA FERNANDEZ

    009 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-3788 December 21, 1907 - PEDRO P. ROXAS v. JULIA TUASON

    009 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. L-3936 December 21, 1907 - JOSE VILLEGAS v. NICOLAS CAPISTRANO

    009 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-3991 December 21, 1907 - SIMEON ROQUE v. RUFINO NAVARRO

    009 Phil 420

  • G.R. No. L-3992 December 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MAGDALENO MENDEZ

    009 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-4086 December 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMO BRELLO

    009 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. L-4201 December 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESPIRIDION ROTA

    009 Phil 426

  • G.R. No. L-3570 December 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ELIGIO C. GARCIA

    009 Phil 434

  • G.R. No. L-3948 December 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SORIANO

    009 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-3969 December 27, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. GABINO SORIANO SANTILLAN

    009 Phil 445


    009 Phil 450