CONSORCIA ALANO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. CARMEN IGNACIO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Hon.
Andres Reyes, presiding, dismissing the complaint in the above entitled
case, for failure of the plaintiffs to adduce evidence to prove the
allegations of the complaint.

The facts necessary to an understanding of the issues involved and
the relationship between the parties thereto may be briefly stated as
follows: Manuel Ignacio (deceased) had three children by Lorenza
Santos, namely, Victoriana, Pedro and Antonio. Victoriana left three
children (by her first husband), namely, Genoveva, Francisca and Juana.
Genoveva left four children; Francisca, with her husband Tomas Alano,
left four children, namely, Consorcia, Ruben, Eligio and Primitivo.
Juana, who was married to Cipriano Sta. Teresa, left six children,
namely, Pilar, Librada, Luisa, Fidela, Alejandra and Maria.

The eldest child of Manuel Ignacio is named Pedro Ignacio and he
left the following children, namely, Estanislao, Benigna, Maria, Emilia
and Leocadio (deceased). For his part, Leocadio Ignacio left as his
children Carmen, Paula, Petra, Fausto, Gertrudes and Gliserla.

It is the claim of the plaintiffs in their complaint that upon the
death of the original predecessor Manuel Ignacio, his heirs, namely,
Pedro Ignacio and Francisca, Juana and Genoveva Pagsisihan, children of
Victoriana Ignacio, inherited the five parcels of land described in the
complaint; that upon the death of Manuel Ignacio, Pedro Ignacio
possessed the property as administrator until his death in 1946; that
since the death of Pedro Ignacio his son Estanislao Ignacio has been in
possession of the lands. The prayer is that the above mentioned
properties be partitioned and defendants pay plaintiffs’ attorney’s
fees.

The defendants in their answer deny, (1) the allegation that the
property described in the complaint had been inherited jointly and that
the real fact is that the said properties are the exclusive properties
of Pedro Ignacio who since time immemorial had possessed them
continuously, adversely and publicly in the concept of owner until his
death, (2) that Pedro Ignacio had never been administrator of any
property left by Manuel Ignacio because it was Victoriana Ignacio and
Antonio Ignacio who took possession of the estate left by the deceased
Manuel Ignacio; (3) that Estanislao Ignacio succeeded in the
administration of the properties left by Pedro Ignacio and that the
fact is that Estanislao Ignacio had actually possessed them as owner
continuously, publicly and adversely since he acquired the same from
his father Pedro Ignacio; (4) that no demand has ever been made upon
defendants, either verbally or in writing, before the filing of the
complaint for partition, regarding their claim on the lands. As special
defense it is claimed that both Pedro Igancio and Estanislao Ignacio
had been in the uninterrupted possession of the property subject of the
complaint continuously, adversely and publicly. A counter claim was
also presented but it need not be mentioned here as the same was
dismissed and the lower court did not grant the prayer contained
therein, and the defendants have not appealed from the decision.

The plaintiffs presented only testimonial evidence to support the
allegations of their complaint. The defendants on the other hand
presented various documents showing that the properties subject of the
action have been declared in the name of the defendants as early as the
year 1913 originally in the name of Pedro Ignacio. Two properties
described in the complaint had been previously mortgaged to one Zoilo
Pagkalinawan in 1935 by Pedro Ignacio, this fact to show exercise of
ownership thereto.

After trial the court rendered the judgment of dismissal in the following terms—

“As can be seen clearly, the evidence of the
plaintiff consisted merely of surmise to the effect that Manuel Ignacio
owned the properties in question and that during his lifetime he
divided them among his three children, Victoriana, Antonio and Pedro.
They based this conclusion merely on their claim that when they reached
the age of reason, they were already occupying the properties in
question. But no convincing evidence however, direct or indirect was
ever presented to show that Manuel Ignacio in fact really owned the
properties In question and was seen or heard, verbally or in writing to
have divided the same among his three children. Furthermore, no sound
reason was given by the plaintiffs to explain why Pedro and his heirs
if it is true that they do not own the properties exclusively, were
allowed to keep the same from the death of said Manuel Ignacio up to
the present time.

“Plaintiff Genoveva claimed that she had
been asking Pedro to return the property to her as early as 1912 but
however, Pedro consistently refused and made several promises to do so.
The failure of the plaintiff to take any legal steps to enforce their
alleged right despite the fact that they knew that Pedro Ignacio and
his heirs has consistently refused to return the property, and has
since 1913 up to the present time been declaring the same in their
name, only shows that plaintiffs were not sure of their so called right
and do not believe that the property belonged to Manuel Ignacio and as
such therefore they are entitled to a share. Otherwise, they would not
have waited for more than four generations to file the present
complaint after those who were competent and were in a position to
testify as to whether Manuel Ignacio really left some properties, are
already dead.” (pp. 26-27, R.O.A)

Against the above decision the plaintiffs have prosecuted this
appeal. In this Court the appeal was given course in view of the
evidence submitted that the value of the property subject of the
litigation has increased to such an extent that the total value of all
reached the jurisdictional amount of this Court.

The brief of the plaintiffs-appellants questions the correctness of
the findings of the trial court; so, it has been necessary for us to
review the testimonial evidence by a study of the transcript and the
documentary evidence, and the result of our study is to the effect that
the findings of facts of the lower court are justified. Two witnesses,
namely, Genoveva Pagsisihan de Alano and Cipriano Sta. Teresa, the
husband of one of the children of Victoriana Ignacio testified for the
plaintiff. Genoveva testified that when she reached the age of reason
her mother Victoriana Ignacio was already married to her second
husband; that her brothers, the eldest age 10 and the next age 3,
witness being the youngest; that the second husband of her mother was
the one who worked on the land subject of the action; that upon the
death of her mother she lived in the house of Pedro Ignacio, and Pedro
Ignacio from that time on began working the land that her family had
been working; that she and her sisters left the house of Pedro Ignacio
having come to Manila to work in a tobacco factory; that they asked
from Pedro Ignacio that their property be given to them and that this
took place around 1912; that upon the demand Pedro Ignacio was angry
and so they let the matter go; that an uncle of theirs by the name of
Antonio Ignacio had interceded in their behalf for the return of the
property as a result of which a quarrel took place between Antonio and
Pedro Ignacio although the fact of this quarrel was only told to her.

Our attention is called to the fact that this witness did not
expressly declare that the properties that her father supposedly worked
and were subsequently taken over by Pedro Ignacio, were the properties
inherited from their mother, who in turn inherited the same from Manuel
Ignacio. All that she said is that her stepfather worked the land for a
few years until the death of her mother and that this land was worked
by Pedro Ignacio upon the death of her mother. In what capacity the
land was worked by her father or her stepfather is not declared. The
mere fact of working over a land without expressing the concept in
which the land was being worked, is no proof that the land is owned by
her mother. Besides, at the time that the land was supposedly being
worked, she was only about seven years old, and she could not be in a
position to state categorically what the nature or character of the
possession was, as the possession may have been as mere tenant. No
other witness for the plaintiffs testified that the cultivation of the
land was in the concept of owner. Consequently the testimony is of no
value whatsoever to support the claim of ownership.

We also noticed that when the land was taken over by Pedro Ignacio
to work, the latter actually took possession of the property as if it
were his own, as witness the following portion of the testimony of
Genoveva Pagsisihan—

“Q.	After Pedro took over that property and farmed the property, what happened?
“A.	There having it for themselves alone because we were living together. (Sinasarili niya mangyari sama-sama kami sa bahay nila.)” (tsn, 20, March 31, 1958)

But assuming that the above evidence submitted by the plaintiffs is prima facie
proof of their case, the same is completely overcome by the conclusive
evidence of possession as owner submitted by the defendants. The
defendants submitted tax declarations of the properties which date as
far back as 1913 as well as the evidence of payment of the land taxes
thereon from that time up to the present (Exhibits 1 to 11, inclusive).
The deed of mortgage, Exhibit 12, submitted by the defendants also show
that Pedro Ignacio exercised ownership over two of the lots described
in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the complaint, having mortgaged the same;
these lands are also assessed in the name of the defendants.

The testimonial evidence of the defendants consisted in the
testimony of Simplicio Marcelo, 90 years old, who described the
properties belonging to Pedro Ignacio evidently mentioned in the
complaint consisting of 4 parcels of land. He further declared that one
of the parcels of land was acquired by Pedro Ignacio from his
(witness’) father in payment of a debt he, owed Pedro Ignacio. This
land was the rice field. This witness also denied that properties
supposedly inherited by Victoriana Ignacio from her father Manuel
Ignacio were ever worked or farmed by Ireneo Santos a witness for the
plaintiffs. Another witness, Estanislao Ignacio, one of the defendants
testified that the lands of his father were the bukid, the riceland,
the solar and the looban; that the bukid was acquired by his father by
purchase from Luis Marcelo, thus corroborating a previous witness. He
identified the tax declarations, Exhibits 1 to 3, and declared that the
other tax declarations have been lost in the war; he also identified
the payment of the taxes.

Witness Genoveva Pagsisihan was called for the second time as
rebuttal witness and testified to the fact of their living in Manila
and working in the tobacco factory of the Tabacalera. But on
cross-examination she admitted that the house in which they were living
when her father was still alive was the house in Wawa located in the
“solar” of Pedro Ignacio; that during the time she and her sisters were
working in Manila they rarely went back to Bagumbayan, Taguig, the
place where the properties are located and where their uncle Pedro
Ignacio and his children lived. Another witness for the plaintiffs on
rebuttal is Ireneo Santos who declared also to the supposed working of
the lands subject of the complaint by the family of plaintiffs; but
however, his testimony can not he be given much weight because he says
that he had been living with the children of Victoriana or Genoveva in
Manila.

The above facts indicate clearly that plaintiffs have failed to
prove the following allegations; that the properties sought to be
partitioned were inherited by their mother from the alleged owner
Manuel Ignacio; that their mother and their father possessed the
properties as owners during their lifetime. The plaintiffs also failed
to prove that the possession by the defendants of the properties was in
trust. On the other hand, defendants have proved conclusively that they
have been in possession of the lands as owner as early as 1912, so that
the possession lasted for 45 years up to the filing of the action in
1957.

This adverse and exclusive possession and ownership of the property
by the defendants for 45 years is attested to not only by the witnesses
for the defendants but also by declaration of properties, payment of
taxes, deed of mortgage executed by their predecessors in interests as
owners of the property, etc.

In view of the foregoing, We find that the evidence fully support
the finding of facts made by the trial court, and, judgment is hereby
rendered absolving the defendants of the complaint, with costs against
the plaintiffs.

Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.