VICTORIA SUGUITAN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. RAMOS VICENTE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The counsel of Victoria Suguitan, a widow of  legal age, filed  a written  complaint  on  April 30, 1908, in the Court of First Instance  of  Ilocos Norte.  In this complaint, which was  amended for the  third   time on  July  10,  1909,  the plaintiff alleged that she was the  possessor, in the  quality of owner, of two rural properties in the sitio  of Monserrate, of  the  pueblo of  Dingras, Ilocos  Norte, bounded,  one of them, on  the north by  lands belonging  to the  heirs of Andres Castro, on the east  by those formerly owned by Dionisio Bonoan,  and now by  Felipe Enrique, on  the south by a  river, and on the west by the property of Jose Agbayani; and the other of them,  on the north  by  a ditch, on the east by land formerly owned by Dionisio Bonoan,  now by Ramos Vicente,  on the south by a river,  and on the west by the lands belonging to the heirs of Jose Agbayani, said two  properties  containing  an  area,  respectively, of 36 ares and 60 centares and 67 ares; that in or about the month of  July, 1906, the defendant Ramos Vicente unlawfully occupied, without the plaintiff’s knowledge, some 21 ares and 25 centares of the first above-described  property and two portions of the second, one of 18  ares and 26 centares and the other of 2 ares and 40  centares, according to the measurements made; wherefore the plaintiff suffered damages in the amount  of P60, the value of the  products of the said properties which  she  failed to  collect.   The plaintiff further  set  forth that as the defendant refused to return  the properties  she instituted this  action for the  recovery  of possession of the same, and asked that judgment  be rendered sentencing the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff the  two aforesaid  properties  and to pay her, as damages, the sum of P60, the value of the products of the land which the  latter  failed  to  collect, and to the payment of the costs.

The counsel for the defendant, by a writing of July 14, 1909, reproduced in all  its parts his answer contained in his writing of August 19, 1908, to the complaint preceding the last amended  one, and after a  general  denial of the essential points which served as a basis for the complaint, alleged as  a  special defense;  that the  lands  described in paragraph No, 1  of  the amended complaint  were not in the possession of  the defendant, according to the area and boundaries of the same therein expressed;  that the two parcels of land held by the defendant and which apparently were those claimed  by the plaintiff, located in the sitio of Monserrate, of the  district of Dingras,  had different areas and boundaries from those of the lands  which  were the subject of the complaint, for one  of them  measured 170 meters in circumference,  equivalent to  7 ares and 70 centares, bounded on the  north by the land  of Esteban Castro, and on the south, east, and west by that of Marcos Manibug,  and  the other parcel  measured 190 meters in circumference  equivalent to 17 ares  and 20 centares, and was bounded on the north  and east by the plaintiff’s own lands, and on  the south and  west  by  those  of  Marcos Manibug;  that the said two parcels  of land belonged exclusively to the defendant, through acquisition by purchase, one of them from the  brothers  Angel and  Felix  Reyes, and the other  from  the sisters Marcelina and  Guillerma Lampituc;  and that  by  virtue of this title he had,  for more than twenty years, been in the public, peaceable, and uninterrupted possession of the said lands, in the quality of owner thereof.  The defendant therefore prayed that in due course of time judgment be rendered in his favor by sentencing  the plaintiff  to perpetual silence  and to  the payment of the costs.

The case having been heard and oral evidence adduced by both parties, the  documents exhibited being attached to the record, the court, in  view of the evidence, rendered judgment on August 18, 1909,  wherein it found that the plaintiff was the  owner of the parcels  of land described in the amended complaint and sentenced the defendant to deliver them to the plaintiff.  The costs were not assessed against either party.  From this judgment’ the defendant’s counsel appealed and  moved for the annulment of the said judgment and the holding of a new trial.  This motion was denied, exception was  taken by  the defendant and the latter’s counsel filed  the  proper bill  of exceptions  which was approved,  certified, and forwarded to the clerk of this court.

This is a possessory action  brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of possession of two parcels of land usurped several years ago by the defendant and which are situated in the sitio named Monserrate, of the pueblo of Dingras, Ilocos Norte.

For the  purpose of proving her ownership to the two parcels of land the recovery of which is sought, the plaintiff exhibited her title of composition with the State, issued by the government of the province by delegation of the Director General de Administration Civil, on July 19, 1895, which title  was  shown  to  have been  recorded  in the property registry on the 16th of August of the same year.

The  two said parcels of land,  judging from their  respective boundaries and areas, are the first and fifth parcels specified in the aforementioned composition title, and notwithstanding the denial of the defendant and the allegations set forth in his answer that the said two parcels of land can in no manner be identified with any of the five parcels of land described in the said ownership title, it is nevertheless certain that the description of the two parcels of land detained by the defendant and claimed by the plaintiff, is in accord with the description of the aforementioned first and fifth parcels as they appear in the said ownership title.

The defendant,  while denying that he usurped any property whatever  belonging to the  plaintiff,  alleged that the two parcels  of land  which he possessed in the aforesaid sitio  of Monserrate  had  different boundaries  and areas, and,  in order  to  prove that  they belonged exclusively to him,  exhibited  three private documents, marked with  the letters A, B, and C, as  titles proving the acquisition of the said lands from the persons whose  names are expressed therein.   These documents, translations of which are found in the record,  do  not appear to have been duly legalized, do not state the boundaries of the respective  lands  to which they relate, nor  are the signatures  of their makers authenticated.

It is unquestionable that the plaintiff, Victoria Suguitan, held  as  owner lands in the said sitio which  are  those described in the title aforementioned, inasmuch as it appears in the  record  attached thereto, made by the  provincial board of composition for the lands of Ilocos Norte, prior to the issuance of the said title  and subsequent  to the publication of the  required notices and the serving of summons on the owners of the adjoining lands, that, on April 4, 1894, the lands, tlie  subject of the composition, two  of which are concerned in this litigation, were inspected and examined by the teniente de sementeras, a subordinate agent of the Government, and an expert surveyor, who went  to the said barrio of Monserrate, and as a result of the said inspection the board aforementioned certified to the capitan municipal on  February 28,  1895, that Victoria Suguitan had, for the past twelve years, held and had been cultivating the lands, the subject of the proceedings, which were examined, and had acquired them by purchase from Juana and Guillerma Bonoan who  also  had and  cultivated them some  forty  years  before.  So  the said lands  have been held and  cultivated since more than fifty years,  and therefore the plaintiff’s ownership right therein is evident and there  exists no legal reason  whatever  which may prevent her being recognized as and declared to be the sole legitimate owner of the two parcels of land in question, among others, and which must be restored to her by their deforciant, the defendant.

For  the foregoing reasons, and  because the judgment appealed from is found to be in accord with the law, it is proper, in our opinion, to affirm  the same, as  we hereby do, with the  coats against the appellant.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Johnson, Moreland, and Trent, JJ,, concur.