G.R. No. 1595. October 28, 1905

This was an action by the plaintiff to recover possession of a parcel of land in the city of Manila occupied by the defendant.

During the trial in the court below the plaintiff offered certain
documents, showing her title to the land in question. The defendant
introduced several witnesses for the purpose of showing that she had
been in possession of the land in question since 1858 and that she went
into possession of said parcel of land by virtue of a certain document
showing that she had purchased said land of one German Bate. This
document was offered in evidence as proof of defendant’s title to said
parcel of land, which document, however, the court refused to admit in
evidence, upon the ground that the said document only referred to
defendant’s right to the house erected upon said parcel of land. The
defendant claimed that said document showed her right to the possession
not only of the house, but the said parcel of land as well.

The defendant duly excepted to this ruling of the court and assigns
such ruling as an error in this court. The alleged document does not
appear here as a part of the bill of exceptions, the defendant
evidently believing that because the court refused the admission of the
same as evidence in the court below that she had no authority to make
the same a part of the bill of exceptions. The document should have
been attached to the record and made a part of the bill of exceptions.

By reason of the fact that the defendant claims that said document
clearly shows her title to the parcel of land in question and by reason
of the fact that said document is not here, we are unable to decide
what bearing said document has upon the question of the right of
possession to said parcel of land. We are of the opinion that the
inferior court committed an error in refusing to admit said document in
evidence as proof, and therefore hereby revoke the sentence of the
inferior court and order that after the expiration of twenty days
judgment be entered in accordance herewith, and said cause be returned
to that court for trial de novo. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, and Carson, JJ., concur.
Willard, J., did not sit in this case.