TEODORA ESTABILLO, MARIA ESTABILLO, FAUSTA ESTABILLO, CATALINA ESTABILLO AND MARIANO BENITEZ, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. NICOLAS ESTABILLO 1.º, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

In the present case the plaintiffs allege that they are the owners of a
parcel of land measuring some thirty hectares and situated in the
municipalities of Pura and Gerona, Province of Tarlac; that in the year
1916 said plaintiffs, through their confidence in the defendant,
authorized him to represent them in cadastral case No. 4 of the
Province of Tarlac and there file a claim in their behalf for the
registration of the eastern portion of said parcel, which portion was
designated as lot No. 1359 in the cadastral survey and contained an
area of 117,692 square meters; that the defendant, betraying the trust
reposed in him, filed a claim in his own name and obtained a decree in
his favor for said lot in September, 1917; that the plaintiffs did not
discover the fraud committed by the defendant until the year 1919, when
said defendant, taking advantage of the decree issued in his favor,
obtained possession of the lot, ousting the plaintiffs therefrom.

The plaintiffs therefore ask that it be declared that they were the
owners of the land in question prior to the year 1917; that the decree
of registration issued in favor of the defendant be declared illegal
and fraudulent; and that the plaintiffs be awarded damages in the sum
of P23,000. The defendant’s answer is a general denial.

Upon
trial the court below found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish
their title to the land and rendered judgment in favor of the
defendant, absolving him from the complaint, with the costs against the
plaintiffs. From this judgment the plaintiffs appeal.

The
appellants present seven assignments of error, of which Nos. 1, 2, 4,
5, 6 and 7 relate only to questions of fact in regard to which the
findings of the court below are, in our opinion, fully sustained by the
evidence.

Under the third assignment of error the appellants
maintain that the court below erred in overruling plaintiffs’ objection
to the admission in evidence of the defendant’s Exhibit 1, an affidavit
made in May, 1908, by one Simon Estabillo, and in which the affiant
states that he is the son and only heir of Santiago Estabillo and that
he knows to a certainty that his father had sold the land here in
question to the defendant, though no document of sale was executed, and
that he, the affiant, therefore relinquished “all rights, actions and
interest” in said land. The document is signed by three witnesses,
among them one Mateo Oclaray, and sworn to before a notary public.

Counsel for the appellants argues that the document was inadmissible
(1) because its authenticity was testified to by only one witness,
Mateo Oclaray, who, on the witness stand, admitted that he was not
present when it was written and did not see the other witnesses to the
instrument sign; (2) that being nothing but an affidavit, it cart only
be regarded as hearsay evidence and that the best evidence of the facts
stated in the document would be the testimony of the affiant himself;
and (3) that in any event the document is not admissible as against the
plaintiffs who did not take part in its execution. At first glance,
this argument seems plausible, but the matter presents a different
aspect when it is considered that it is not disputed that Santiago
Estabillo, the father of Simon, was the original owner of the land, and
that both the plaintiffs and the defendant claim title through him;
that neither is it disputed that Simon Estabillo was the son of
Santiago and is the father of the appellant Fausta Estabillo; and that
both Santiago and Simon Estabillo died before this action was brought.
The document is therefore an admission against interest by the
predecessor of one of the appellants and constitutes an exception to
the hearsay rule. As such it is evidence against Simon’s daughter, the
appellant Fausta Estabillo. It is further admissible to show that the
defendant has been in possession of the land under a claim of ownership
adverse to the claims of the descendants of Santiago Estabillo. The
fact that the only witness who testified to its authenticity was not
present when the document was written and signed by the other
subscribing witnesses, may lessen its probatory value, but does not
render it inadmissible as evidence.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.