AURELIO ASOMBRA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. BENITA DORADO AND FELIX GESMUNDO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

This action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of the Province of
Laguna on the 22d day of April, 1914. While its original purpose was to obtain a
perpetual injunction against the defendants, prohibiting them from interfering
with the possession of a certain piece or parcel of land particularly described
in paragraph 2 of the complaint, it resolved itself into an action to recover
the title to land by virtue of the answer of the defendants which alleged that
they were the owners of said parcel of land and entitled to the possession
thereof. In support of his claim for a perpetual injunction the plaintiff
alleged that he was the owner of said parcel of land; that the defendants were
continuously molesting him in the possession of the same and were reaping the
crops and fruits of said land

illegally, and that they would continue so to
do unless restrained by an order of the court.

The defendants, answering the petition, alleged that they were the owners of
the parcel of land in question and had been in the peaceable and lawful
possession of the same for a period of twenty years or more.

Upon the issue thus joined, the Honorable Pedro Concepcion, judge, after
hearing the evidence adduced by the respective parties, reached the conclusion
that the defendants were the owners of the parcel of land in question and
dismissed the complaint and absolved them from all liability thereunder. From
that decision the plaintiff appealed.

In his first assignment of error he alleges that the lower court committed an
error in admitting Exhibit 1. An examination of the records shows that said
exhibit was admitted without objection. The appellant not having raised the
question in the court below, and having been raised here for the first time, and
finding as we do that said exhibit was in fact admissible for the reason that it
tended to prove the allegations of the defendants in their answer, we find that
the lower court committed no error in admitting the same.

The second assignment of error alleges that the lower court committed an
error in admitting Exhibit No. 2 The objection presented in the court below to
said document was the fact that it had not been properly certified. Exhibit 2
was a certified copy of a certain action in the court of justice of the peace.
The same justice of the peace who heard said action certified that the copy
presented was in accordance with his record. The certificate was made under the
seal of said justice of the peace. The justice of the peace having certified
under his seal that Exhibit 2 was a true and correct copy of the record of his
court, we find no objection to its admissibility upon the ground alleged by the
appellant. Exhibit 2 showed that prior to the commencement of the present
action, another action, criminal in form, had been commenced against the present
defendants and others for alleged illegal acts on the part of the defendants
committed upon said land.

The justice of the peace reached the conclusion that the defendants were the
owners of the parcel of land in question and were, therefore, not criminally
responsible for the alleged acts committed by them. The lower court committed no
error in admitting Exhibit 2.

The third assignment of error alleges that the lower court committed an error
in declaring that the defendants were the owners of the parcel of land in
question, and in refusing to issue the perpetual injunction. The court refused
to issue the injunction to prevent the defendants from entering upon said land
and occupying it and reaping the fruits thereof, for the reason that the proof
showed that the same belonged to them. Both the plaintiff and defendants
presented proof tending to show that they were the owners of the parcel of land
in question. They each claimed the land by inheritance. They had each declared
the land for the purpose of taxation. Considering the evidence introduced by
both the plaintiff and the defendants, and considering the conclusion of the
judge who saw and heard the witnesses, and being required as we are by Act No.
1596 to take into consideration the findings and conclusions of the lower court
as to what is the preponderance of proof, we have reached the conclusion that
there is a preponderance of proof in support of the conclusion that the
defendants were the owners of the parcel of land in question.

Therefore, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed, with costs. So
ordered.

Considering that the purpose of the present action, as it was originally
commenced, was to obtain possession of real property by means of an injunction,
and in view of the fact that there seems to be a practice in many of the
judicial districts to use the remedy of injunction to obtain possession of real
property, we deem it pertinent to observe that the purpose of an injunction is
not to take property out of the possession or control of one person and to place
it in the hands of another. The law affords another adequate, speedy and summary
proceeding for that purpose. (Devesa vs. Arbes, 13 Phil. Rep., 273;
Palafox vs. Madamba, 19 Phil. Rep., 444; Evangelista vs.
Pedreños, 27 Phil. Rep., 648; Gilchrist vs. Cuddy, 29 Phil. Rep., 542;
Golding vs. Balatbat, p. 941, post.)

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