G.R. No. 1801. July 26, 1905

Please log in to request a case brief.

4 Phil. 611

[ G.R. No. 1801. July 26, 1905 ]

EUSEBIA BROCE ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. CATALINO BROCE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N



WILLARD, J.:

Gregorio Broce died on the 16th day of August, 1889. The plaintiffs
are his children, and the defendant is his brother. The only question
in the case is, Are the plaintiffs the owners of the hacienda San
Pedro, in the pueblo of Calatrava, in the Province of Occidental
Negros, or is the defendant the owner?

The court below decided that the plaintiffs were the owners. The
defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that this decision was
not justified by the evidence, and in this court the only question
raised by the different assignments of error is, Did the evidence in
the court justify this finding of fact made by the trial judge? It is
simply a question concerning the weight of evidence.

After an examination of the evidence we are satisfied that it
clearly preponderates in favor of the plaintiffs, and we adopt the
following quotation from the decision of the court below:

“Sin hacer merito detallado de cada una de las
pruebas practicadas por la parte demandante entiende que la
certificacion del registro de inscripcion de la misma (la hacienda) que
obra unida a losautos y que aparece extendida a nombre y en favor de
los demandantes constituye prueba convincente a juicio de esta Corte de
la principal pretension de los demandantes, y este juicio se funda no
solo en el caracter publico de dicho documento cuya antiguedad data
desde el 1.° de Diciembre de 1890 o sea cuando habia ocurrido apenas un
ano el fallecimiento de Don Gregorio Broce, sino tambien y principal
men te porque la informacion posesoria a que se refiere la inscripcion
en el Registro de la Propiedad de que se ha hecho merito en orden a la
finca en cuestion fue promovida nada menos y precisamente por el mismo
D. Catalino Broce hoy demandado. En ella Catalino Broce expone
paladinamente que al ocurrir la muerte de su hermano D. Gregorio Broce,
este dejo varios hijos de los que fue nombrado tutor y curador,
llamados Maximina, Eusebia, Tranquilino, Emilio, Florentino, Dionisio,
Juan y Margarita todos de apellido Broce y Apurado, a los cuales
pertenece proindiviso la propiedad de un terreno de 300 cavanes en
semilla de palay con los mismos linderos que se describen en la
demanda, habiendo adquirido dicha finca su citado hermano por compra de
varios duefios entre ellos de D. Carlos Apurado desde el ano 1880 en
que aquel estuvo en quieta y pacifica posesion de la misma hasta que
tuvo lugar su fallecimiento.”

The defendant at the trial gave two or three reasons why he caused
this possessory information to be filed in the names of the plaintiffs,
but the evidence which he adduced in support of these reasons did not
establish any one of them. There was, moreover, other evidence in the
case tending to support the claim of the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this
instance against the appellant. After the expiration of twenty days
judgment will be entered in conformity herewith, and the cause will be
returned to the lower court for execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J. Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson JJ., concur.






Date created: April 25, 2014




Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post
Filter
Apply Filters