G.R. No. 2332. November 10, 1905

The plaintiff, claiming to be the owner of 112 hectares of land in
the barrio of Unsad, in the pueblo of Villasis, in the Province of
Pangasinan, brought this action to recover the possession of a part of
this land, which he claimed was unlawfully occupied by the defendants.

The evidence does not show that he has any documentary title to any
of the land. He introduced in evidence a paper, executed by the principales
of the town in 1860, which purported to give him and Leonardo
Evangelista the ownership of a certain tract of land in said barrio for
the purpose of cultivating the same. The title to this land could not
have been granted by this instrument, because the persons executing it
had no power to convey it.

There is nothing in the description contained in this document which
indicates that it is the same land described in the complaint in this
action. The plaintiff, however, testified that it was, and that he had
been in possession thereof from 1860 to 1902, when he was dispossessed
by the defendants. Upon this point an issue of fact was raised between
plaintiff and defendants, the latter testifying that the plaintiff had
never been in possession of any part of the land now occupied by them.
Upon this issue of fact we think that the evidence preponderates in
favor of the defendants.

The plaintiff in 1893 undertook to obtain a title from the
Government to the land described in his complaint under the laws
relating to the adjustment of titles with the State. He failed,
however, in this undertaking, and in 1893 the defendant Bascos acquired
a deed from the State under these same laws for the land which he
occupies.

There is no other evidence in the case which relates to any of the
defendants except to the defendant Tranquilino Bascos. As to him the
plaintiff introduced in evidence a document signed by Bascos in
May,1893. This document stated that the tract of land for which Bascos
had obtained the deed from the State had been returned by him to its
former owner, the plaintiff.

The evidence in the case shows that this statement was not true. It
showed that the defendant Bascos had not delivered the possession of
this land to the plaintiff, and his claim is that he was induced to
sign the document by reason of threats made at the time by the parish
priest of the locality. It is claimed by the plaintiff that this
document operated as a transfer of the title of the land from the
defendant Bascos to the plaintiff. We do not think that it can be given
any such effect. It amounted, in our opinion, only to an extrajudicial
admission that the plaintiff was the owner of the land. It was
competent for the defendant to overcome the effect of this admission by
evidence showing that the plaintiff was not in fact the owner of the
land, and the evidence produced by the defendant did, in our opinion,
prove that the plaintiff was not the owner.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this
instance against the appellant, and after the expiration of twenty days
judgment should be entered in accordance herewith, and the case
remanded to the court below for execution of said judgment. So ordered.

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