February 1910 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > February 1910 Decisions >
G.R. No. 5193 February 16, 1910 - FERNANDO FERRER v. DOROTEA DIAZ
015 Phil 219:
015 Phil 219:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 5193. February 16, 1910. ]
FERNANDO FERRER, Petitioner-Appellee, v. DOROTEA and ROSARIO DIAZ, Oppositors-Appellants.
Eugenio de Lara, for Appellants.
G. E. Campbell, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; RES ADJUDICATA. — The plea of res judicata will not be sustained where it appears that the judgment upon which the claim is based, although between the same parties and involving the same subject-matter, is one dismissing the complaint expressly without prejudice to the right of plaintiff to institute a subsequent action for the same relief.
D E C I S I O N
MORELAND, J. :
The petitioner asks for the registration of his title to 14 hectares 62 areas 32 centares of land, located in Burol, barrio of Valdefuerte, municipality of Cabanatuan, Province of Nueva Ecija.
The plan filed by the petitioner describes and includes not only the land just mentioned but also 12 hectares additional.
The petitioner’s title to the 14 hectares above mentioned is clearly established by the deed of the same introduced in evidenced by him, which it appears that he purchased said land of Benedicto Ibarra and Emeterio Ibarra on the 16th day of April, 1907; and by the testimony of the said Benedicto and Emeterio Ibarra, who testified that they and their ancestors had been continuously in possession of said land, cultivating the same, for a period of more than thirty years prior to the execution and delivery of said deed.
Dorotea Diaz opposed the registration of the petitioner’s title to the land in question upon the ground that the land sought to be registered by the petitioner contained within its limits 16 hectares of land in the possession of said oppositor. Rosario Diaz also opposed the registration of petitioner’s title to said land upon the ground that said land described in the petition included within its limits 12 hectares of land in the possession of said Rosario Diaz. These two seem to found their opposition upon a possession of their respective parcels of land, although there is no real proof in the case of such possession, and also upon certain papers issued to them by the Insular Government, giving them authority to take possession of the lands mentioned as homesteads. Such permission from the Insular Government in favor of was obtained the 28th of December, 1907; that in favor of Doroteo Diaz bears date the 8th day of February, 1908. Neither of those instruments contains a description of the land referred to therein and we have no means of knowing from the record where said lands are located or what their limits or boundaries may be. The right of the said oppositors in the lands claimed in their opposition rests solely upon the permits issued to them respectively by the Insular Government. There is no proof in the case of their possession of the lands and no evidence as to their location, situation, boundaries, or limits. There is no proof whatever upon which we may sustain the opposition.
The attorney for the oppositors makes some claim that the right to the possession of the land in question has been once adjudicated by the Court of First Instance of the Province of Nueva Ecija in an action brought to test the right to such possession, entitled "Bernardo Ferrer v. Venancio Diaz and others," in which the complaint of Ferrer was dismissed by the judge. An examination of the order made by the court in that action discloses that said action was dismissed without a trial upon the merits and expressly without prejudice to the bringing of another action for the determination of the rights of the parties to the land in question.
After a careful examination of the record and the proofs we are unable to see any reason why the judgment of the court below, ordering the registration of the petitioner’s title to the land described in the petition, namely, 14 hectares 62 acre and 32 centares, should not be sustained.
The judgment of the court below is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Elliott, JJ., concur.
The plan filed by the petitioner describes and includes not only the land just mentioned but also 12 hectares additional.
The petitioner’s title to the 14 hectares above mentioned is clearly established by the deed of the same introduced in evidenced by him, which it appears that he purchased said land of Benedicto Ibarra and Emeterio Ibarra on the 16th day of April, 1907; and by the testimony of the said Benedicto and Emeterio Ibarra, who testified that they and their ancestors had been continuously in possession of said land, cultivating the same, for a period of more than thirty years prior to the execution and delivery of said deed.
Dorotea Diaz opposed the registration of the petitioner’s title to the land in question upon the ground that the land sought to be registered by the petitioner contained within its limits 16 hectares of land in the possession of said oppositor. Rosario Diaz also opposed the registration of petitioner’s title to said land upon the ground that said land described in the petition included within its limits 12 hectares of land in the possession of said Rosario Diaz. These two seem to found their opposition upon a possession of their respective parcels of land, although there is no real proof in the case of such possession, and also upon certain papers issued to them by the Insular Government, giving them authority to take possession of the lands mentioned as homesteads. Such permission from the Insular Government in favor of was obtained the 28th of December, 1907; that in favor of Doroteo Diaz bears date the 8th day of February, 1908. Neither of those instruments contains a description of the land referred to therein and we have no means of knowing from the record where said lands are located or what their limits or boundaries may be. The right of the said oppositors in the lands claimed in their opposition rests solely upon the permits issued to them respectively by the Insular Government. There is no proof in the case of their possession of the lands and no evidence as to their location, situation, boundaries, or limits. There is no proof whatever upon which we may sustain the opposition.
The attorney for the oppositors makes some claim that the right to the possession of the land in question has been once adjudicated by the Court of First Instance of the Province of Nueva Ecija in an action brought to test the right to such possession, entitled "Bernardo Ferrer v. Venancio Diaz and others," in which the complaint of Ferrer was dismissed by the judge. An examination of the order made by the court in that action discloses that said action was dismissed without a trial upon the merits and expressly without prejudice to the bringing of another action for the determination of the rights of the parties to the land in question.
After a careful examination of the record and the proofs we are unable to see any reason why the judgment of the court below, ordering the registration of the petitioner’s title to the land described in the petition, namely, 14 hectares 62 acre and 32 centares, should not be sustained.
The judgment of the court below is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson and Elliott, JJ., concur.
