March 1911 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > March 1911 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-6231 March 18, 1911 - CELESTINO SYTIAR CLEMENTE v. AMBROSIO MARASIGAN
019 Phil 120:
019 Phil 120:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-6231. March 18, 1911.]
CELESTINO SYTIAR CLEMENTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMBROSIO MARASIGAN, Defendant-Appellee.
Ramon Salinas, for Appellant.
Sanz and Opisso, for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. REALTY; TITLE BY PRESCRIPTION. — Prescriptive title to land is established in an action instituted on October 29, 1906, by proof that defendant had been in possession, under a claim of ownership, since the year 1894, when he bought it from one at that time in possession under claim of ownership, the deed of sale having been executed in a private document, which was ratified and affirmed in a public-document by the vendor’s heirs on July 18, 1902.
D E C I S I O N
CARSON, J.:
This action was instituted to recover possession of the parcel of land described in the complaint. Judgment was entered in the court below in favor of the defendant in possession.
The evidence of record fully and sufficiently sustains the findings of fact by the trial judge, and upon these findings the judgment rendered by him must be affirmed.
The evidence discloses, beyond any question, that the defendant and his antecedents in interest have been in quiet, peaceable, and uninterrupted possession of the land in question, under a claim of ownership, for a long period of years, and that he, himself, has been in possession since the year 1894, when he bought it from one Icaza, at that time in possession, the deed of sale being executed in a private document, which was ratified and affirmed in a public document by the heirs of Icaza, then deceased, on July 19, 1902. This action was instituted on October 29, 1906.
It is quite clear that without going any further back than the occupation of the defendant himself, he must be held to have established his prescriptive title to the land in question, in view of his quiet, peaceable, and uninterrupted possession thereof, under a claim of ownership, for more than ten years, he having acquired the land in good faith by purchase from one who himself was in possession under a bona fide claim of ownership.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.
The evidence of record fully and sufficiently sustains the findings of fact by the trial judge, and upon these findings the judgment rendered by him must be affirmed.
The evidence discloses, beyond any question, that the defendant and his antecedents in interest have been in quiet, peaceable, and uninterrupted possession of the land in question, under a claim of ownership, for a long period of years, and that he, himself, has been in possession since the year 1894, when he bought it from one Icaza, at that time in possession, the deed of sale being executed in a private document, which was ratified and affirmed in a public document by the heirs of Icaza, then deceased, on July 19, 1902. This action was instituted on October 29, 1906.
It is quite clear that without going any further back than the occupation of the defendant himself, he must be held to have established his prescriptive title to the land in question, in view of his quiet, peaceable, and uninterrupted possession thereof, under a claim of ownership, for more than ten years, he having acquired the land in good faith by purchase from one who himself was in possession under a bona fide claim of ownership.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Moreland and Trent, JJ., concur.
