Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1912 > March 1912 Decisions > G.R. No. 6664 March 29, 1912 - PEDRO GERALDO v. MATEO ARPON

022 Phil 407:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 6664. March 29, 1912. ]

PEDRO GERALDO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MATEO ARPON, Defendant-Appellant.

Enage & Karagdag, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. REALTY; POSSESSORY INFORMATION; EJECTMENT. — In an action to dispossess the occupant of land alleged to have been illegally seized, a duly registered possessory information in the name of the plaintiff is not conclusive either as to possession or ownership.

2. ID.; USE AND OCCUPATION; AGRICULTURAL LANDS. — Where plaintiff seeks to recover for use and occupation, it is essential that he show clearly the pecuniary loss. A money judgment cannot be based upon vague and indefinite statements as to quantity of grain raised and price thereof during a term of years.

3. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; EVIDENCE; ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTIFIED COPY OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENT. — Section 284 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly provides that where an original document is in the custody of a public official, a duly certified Copy of such record is admissible.

4. ID.; ID.; OBJECTION TO ADMISSION OF EXHIBITS. — If counsel fails to raise objection at the proper time during the trial of the cause, to the admission of exhibits offered in evidence, his objection raised for the first time on appeal comes too late.

5. NOTARIAL DOCUMENTS; CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING VALUE AS EVIDENCE. — When, as a defense in an action for the recovery of land, a notarial document is offered in evidence which was executed just prior to the commencement of the action, purporting to be a copy of a private document dated some twenty years previously setting forth that the land had been acquired by purchase, the failure to present the latter when such sale is denied by the opposing party seriously affects the probative value of such notarial document.


D E C I S I O N


TRENT, J. :


The questions involved in this appeal are (1) the ownership of a small parcel of rice land situated in the Province of Leyte, and (2) the products of the same since 1904. The trial court found the plaintiff to be the owner of a part of the land described in his complaint and entitled to receive the products therefrom, amounting to P175. The defendant appealed.

For the purpose of establishing his title, the plaintiff presented a certified copy of a possessory information obtained in 1897 and duly registered the following year and also the testimony of himself and one other witness to the effect that the plaintiff had been for more than twenty years prior to 1904 in possession of the land in question. On the other hand, three witnesses, including the defendant, testified that the defendant is now and has been in possession of a part of the land described in the complaint since the year 1890, and that the other part is possessed by one Epifanio Blancaflor. The defendant also presented a notarial document in which it appears that he purchased from Tiburcio, Felipe, Placido, and Paulino Cirera the land claimed by him.

While it cannot be said that a possessory information, although duly registered, which was obtained in 1897, is conclusive either as to ownership or possession, yet, in this case, the possessory information presented by the plaintiff, taken in connection with the oral testimony presented by him, shows clearly that he is the real owner of that part of the land sought to be recovered which is now in possession of the defendant. It is true that the defendant claimed that he purchased this land in 1890 from the above-named parties and that in support of this claim he presented the notarial document which was executed on April 30, 1910 (some ten days before the institution of this action). The defendant testified that this notarial document was executed at the time he made the purchase in 1890 and that this is the same identical document which he received at that time, while the document shows upon its face and also from the notary’s certificate that it was executed on April 30, 1910. So the defendant’s testimony in reference to having received this document in 1890 cannot possibly be true. The defense attempted to explain this point by trying to show that this notarial document is a copy of the private document executed in favor of the defendant in that year. The old document, if it existed, was not presented, neither was there any attempt made to present the same. The record shows conclusively that the execution of this notarial document was made for the sole purpose of trying to defeat the plaintiff, and that the defendant never purchased any part of this land.

Counsel for the defendant, in his printed brief, insists that the trial court erred in admitting the certified copy of the possessory information presented by the plaintiff, and bases this contention upon the provisions of section 284 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This section treats of original writings and provides that there can be no evidence of the contents of a writing other than the writing itself, except in certain cases, one of these cases being when the original is a record or other document in the custody of a public official. The document presented by the plaintiff is a copy of the possessory information taken from the property registry and duly certified by the registrar of deeds. And furthermore, his objection, which was raised for the first time on appeal, comes too late.

It was also contended that the trial court erred in rendering judgment against the defendant for the products of that portion of the land which he has occupied since 1904. We think this contention is well founded. The plaintiff, prior to 1904, had been in possession of this land cultivating it almost every year for a period of more than twenty years. But it appears that about the latter part of 1903 he ceased to cultivate this land and that the defendant entered into possession of part of the same and has continued in the use and occupation of that part up to the present time. The plaintiff has paid very little attention to this land since that year. So little that he did not know at the time this case was tried that one Blancaflor was in possession of a part of the land sought to be recovered by him. All of this land is occupied by the defendant and Blancaflor, but it does not appear how much is occupied by each one. The plaintiff testified that when he cultivated all of the land he produced some 80 to 100 cavanes of palay annually. Another witness testified that palay since 1904 has sold for from two pesos to two and one-half pesos per cavan. There is nothing in the record to show what portion of the crop should belong to the landlord and what portion to the occupant, neither does the record show with any degree of certainty how much of the 2.2625 hectares in the entire piece is in possession of the defendant. The testimony presented by the plaintiff is so indefinite and uncertain that a money judgment for the unlawful use and occupation of the land by the defendant cannot be sustained.

Therefore, the judgment appealed from should be and hereby is modified by disallowing recovery for the products of the land. As thus modified, the same is affirmed without costs.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1912 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 6783 March 1, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS REOGILON, ET AL

    022 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 6183 March 2, 1912 - JUAN SAMBRANO v. BALDOMERO AR ZAGA, ET AL

    022 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. 5902 March 7, 1912 - P. P. ANGEL ORTIZ, ET AL v. Chinaman FELIX MELLIZA

    022 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 6472 March 7, 1912 - MANUELA ROSARIO, ET AL. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    022 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. 6092 March 8, 1912 - TAN CHIONG SIAN v. INCHAUSTI & Co.

    022 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 6874 March 8, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CAYETANO RAMAYRAT

    022 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 6891 March 8, 1912 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ET AL.

    022 Phil 192

  • G.R. No. 7350 March 8, 1912 - EUGENIA SAVILLA v. ESTEBAN SABELLANO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 197

  • G.R. No. 5735 March 9, 1912 - ESTATE OF LUIS R. YANGCO v. ANTONINO DE ASIS

    022 Phil 201

  • G.R. No. 7189 March 9, 1912 - ADOLFO RAZLAG v. SANCHO BALANTACBO

    022 Phil 205

  • G.R. No. 6163 March 14, 1912 - SON CUI, ET AL v. ATANASIA M. GUEPANGCO, ET AL

    022 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 6801 March 14, 1912 - JULIANA BAGTAS v. ISIDORO PAGUIO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 6962 March 14, 1912 - INES FELICIANO v. ELISA CAMAHORT

    022 Phil 235

  • G.R. No. 7117 March 14, 1912 - AGUSTINA RAFOLS v. EMILIA RAFOLS, ET AL.

    022 Phil 237

  • G.R. No. 6622 March 15, 1912 - PAULA DIRILO v. INOCENCIO ROPERES, ET AL.

    022 Phil 246

  • G.R. No. 7020 March 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. DAMIAN SANTA ANA, ET AL

    022 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 7037 March 15, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE LAUREL, ET AL.

    022 Phil 252

  • G.R. No. 6748 March 16, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AMBROSIO FIGUEROA

    022 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. 6574 March 19, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. AGUSTIN CLEMENTE

    022 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 7027 March 20, 1912 - GEORGE E. WORCESTER v. BUCKNALL STEAMSHIP LINES

    022 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. 5935 March 22, 1912 - STRACHAN & MACMURRAY v. SEGUNDO EMALDI

    022 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. 6585 March 22, 1912 - EULALIO LAGARIZA v. COMMANDING GEN. OF THE DIV. OF THE PHIL.

    022 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. 6809 March 22, 1912 - GREGORIO PEÑALOSA v. DEMETRIO TUASON, ET AL.

    022 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. 7040 March 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMINO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    022 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 7203 March 22, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. CHUA PUETE, ET AL

    022 Phil 327

  • G.R. No. 7294 March 22, 1912 - G. URRUTIA & COMPANY v. PASIG STEAMER & LIGHTER CO.

    022 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7144 March 23, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. Co CHICUYCO

    022 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 6918 March 25, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. YAP KIN CO

    022 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 7075 March 25, 1912 - RODRIGO ALBANO v. CORNELIO AGTARAP, ET AL.

    022 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 7124 March 25, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. MARIA ASUNCION

    022 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. 7474 March 25, 1912 - HENRY ATHOLL EDWARDS v. H. B. McCOY

    022 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. 6286 March 26, 1912 - GAVINA FERNANDEZ v. EULOGIO TRIA

    022 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 6579 March 26, 1912 - CHIENG AH SUI v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    022 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. 6694 March 26, 1912 - MARIANO NARCIDA, ET AL v. BURTON E. BOWEN

    022 Phil 365

  • G.R. No. 6729 March 26, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO FIDELDIA

    022 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 7165 March 26, 1912 - DAMASA LAFORGA, ET AL. v. BRUNO LAFORGA

    022 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 6651 March 28, 1912 - PAULINO JACINTO v. JULIANA SALVADOR, ET AL.

    022 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 6733 March 28, 1912 - VICTORIANO S. LAZO v. MARIANO N. LAZO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 6920 March 28, 1912 - ALEJANDRA IRLANDA v. CATALINA PITARGUE, ET AL.

    022 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 7289 March 28, 1912 - ANDRES S. TOBIAS, ET AL. v. GABRIEL C. ENRICO, ET AL.

    022 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 6164 March 29, 1912 - JUAN MARBELLA v. DOMINGO SAMSON, ET AL.

    022 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 6664 March 29, 1912 - PEDRO GERALDO v. MATEO ARPON

    022 Phil 407

  • G.R. No. 6690 March 29, 1912 - SILVESTRA V. TENORIO v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    022 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 6886 March 29, 1912 - GAUDENCIO TABOTABO v. GREGORIA MOLERO

    022 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 6958 March 29, 1912 - GABRIELA SANTOS v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    022 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 7089 March 29, 1912 - JOSE T. PATERNO v. PEDRO AGUILA, ET AL

    022 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 7094 March 29, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO DE LA CRUZ

    022 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. 7688 March 29, 1912 - MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD & LIGHT CO. v. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL

    022 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. 6859 March 30, 1912 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS MATINONG, ET AL.

    022 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 6912 March 30, 1912 - JOSE ARGUELLES v. PEDRO SYYAP, ET AL

    022 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 7386 March 30, 1912 - ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA v. PEDRO P. ROXAS

    022 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. 7180 March 30, 1912 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. A. S. WATSON & CO. LTD.

    022 Phil 623