MARCELINO VILLAFUERTE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. MIGUEL EREGA AND MARGARITO DIA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the Province of
Tayabas on the 3d day of June, 1913. Its purpose was to recover the possession,
as owner, of a certain piece or parcel of land which is particularly described
in paragraph 2 of the complaint, together with damages for the illegal use and
occupation of the same. The plaintiff alleged that he was the absolute owner of
the land in question; that the defendants had deprived him of the use of the
land for a period of about six months previous to the filing of the complaint;
that the damages of the plaintiff would be P200 per year; that the defendants
are occupying the land without right and without title; that the house which the
defendant Miguel Erega was constructing upon this land in question was being
constructed in bad faith, and that the same should be adjudged to the
plaintiff.

On the 1st day of July, 1913, the defendant Miguel Erega answered said
petition denying each and all of the facts therein alleged; alleged that he had
purchased the land in question from Margarito Dia; and prayed that he be made a
party to the present action. On the 30th day of September, 1913, Margarito Dia,
having been made a party to the action, appeared and answered the petition of
the plaintiff. After denying each and all of the material allegations of the
petition, he alleged that he had been in the possession, as owner, of said
parcel of land for many years; that he had inherited the same from Anselmo
Ranees; that Anselmo Ranees had inherited the said parcel of land from his
father Candido Ranees; that Candido Ranees had occupied the land in good faith
for many years; arid that he had obtained the same by “composicion con el
Estado.”

Upon the issue thus presented the Honorable George R. Harvey, in a very
carefully prepared opinion, reached the conclusion that that part of the land in
question marked “lot 1” in plan Exhibit A belonged to the plaintiff, and without
making any finding as to the ownership of the rest of the property possessed by
the defendant Miguel Erega, absolved the defendants from any liability under the
complaint, without any finding as to costs. From that judgment of the lower
court the plaintiff appealed.

In his first assignment of error he alleged that the lower court committed an
error in declaring that Exhibits B and C were not genuine, that they did not
bear the genuine signature of the said Anselmo Ranees. The land in question is a
rectangular piece, composed of lot 1 and lot 2, divided by a line running
diagonally through said rectangle. The defendants admit that lot 1 belonged to
the plaintiff. The question, therefore, relating to the possession of lot 1 is
eliminated from this discussion. The plaintiff admits that lot 2 originally
belonged to Anselmo Ranees, but alleged and attempted to prove by Exhibits B and
C that said lot was exchanged by Anselmo Ranees for a lot which belonged to him.
If said Exhibits B and C are genuine and were really executed, then there would
be some merit in the contention of the plaintiff. The defendants, however,
attempted to prove that Exhibits B and C were forgeries; that Anselmo Ranees
never signed them. The defendants presented Exhibits F and 8 (pages 53 and 54 of
record), which were admitted to be the genuine signatures of Anselmo Ranees. A
comparison of the alleged signatures of Anselmo Ranees as found in Exhibits B
and C with what was proved to be his genuine signature as appears in Exhibits F
and 8 shows that there is a great dissimilarity between them. The lower court
reached the conclusion that the signatures in Exhibits B and C were not the
signature of Anselmo Ranees. An examination of said signatures shows a very
great dissimilarity. Upon examination of the signatures in said Exhibits B and C
it will be noted that in the letter “A” in that signature there is apparently a
tracing underneath the letter, as well as in the letters “R” and the small
letter “e” at the end of the name. If the signatures were genuine it is not
likely that such tracing would appear. An examination of the dates of said
documents will show that Exhibit B was supposed to have been made in January 1,
1904, and Exhibit C on January 12, 1905. Exhibit 8, which is admitted to be a
genuine document and bears the genuine signature of Anselmo Ranees, was made on
January 24, 1905. Signatures made by a person within practically the same period
of time would ordinarily be similar—ordinarily there would not be the difference
which appears in the signatures to Exhibits B and C and those found in Exhibits
F and 8. Another fact which tends to destroy the veracity of the contention of
the plaintiff, to wit, that he obtained lot 2 from Anselmo Ranees is the fact
that Anselmo Ranees continued to pay the taxes upon said property (page 90 of
record).

The second assignment of error relates simply to the preponderance of the
evidence. Eliminating Exhibits B and C there is practically no evidence in the
record which supports the contention of the plaintiff. The defendants having
been in possession of the land in question for a long period of time under claim
of title, they have in their favor the legal presumption that they had occupied
the same under sufficient title. (Article 448, Civil Code; Heirs of Jumero
vs. Lizares, 17 Phil. Rep., 112.)

After a careful examination of the record we are of the opinion that a large
preponderance of the evidence sustains the conclusions of the lower court. The
judgment appealed from is, therefore, hereby affirmed, with costs. So
ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Carson, Araullo, Street, and Malcolm, JJ.,
concur.