JULIAN SANTIAGO ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. PEDRO SANTOS ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

The
controversy in this case is concerned with the recovery of the land
described in paragraph 4 of the complaint, and which is a part of a
property of greater area of the deceased Fabian Tiongson.

The plaintiff Julian Santiago is father of his coplaintiffs Gaspara and
Santiago, and the three of them allege that they are the owners pro indiviso
of said portion of land, the same having been partly inherited by the
wife and mother, respectively, of said plaintiffs, who was a
granddaughter of the original owner Fabian Tiongson, and partly
purchased from other owners.

The defendant Pedro Santos who
is in possession of the land in question (the defendant Teodorico
Santos has no interest in, or right over, the land), asserts that he is
the absolute owner of said realty, setting up prescription as special
defense against the complaint, and a counter-claim which does not
concern us in this appeal, the same having been overruled by the trial
court and no appeal having been taken from said overruling.

The trial court absolved the defendants from the complaint.

The errors assigned to said judgment are as follows:

1. The finding that the plaintiffs have not proven who was the
   granddaughter of Fabian Tiongson, with whom the plaintiff Julian
   Santiago was married, nor what portion was allotted to her as heir of
   said Tiongson.

2. The finding that
   it was not shown by any proof how the plaintiff Julian Santiago
   acquired his right to the land in question, which was sold with a right
   of repurchase by said plaintiff Julian Santiago to one Hilarion Reyes.

3. The failure to adjudge the plaintiffs absolute owners of the land in question.
4. The failure to render judgment against the defendant Pedro Santos and
   in favor of the plaintiffs for the payment of the sum of P600 yearly
   from the year 1918, as the rents collected and received by said
   defendant for the land in question until delivery thereof.

5. The denial of the motion for new trial.

As to the first error, it really does not appear to have been proven
who is the granddaughter of Fabian Tiongson, and above all, what
portion of the land of said deceased was allotted to said
granddaughter. Exhibit 8 cited by the appellants in their brief was
presented as evidence only as to the 3,000 nipa plants which were
destroyed, and not that part of it as to who was the alleged
granddaughter of Fabian Tiongson, which part was not used by the
plaintiff as evidence. In order that said part concerning the said
granddaughter may be considered as evidence in this case, the
plaintiffs should have presented it as such. (Sec. 283, Code of Civil
Procedure; Matias vs. Alvarez, 10 Phil., 398.) And not only did
the plaintiffs not offer said Exhibit 8 as evidence, but objected to
said document, as being immaterial and incompetent, and took exception
to its admission.

At any rate, said Exhibit 8 does not show
the portion which, is said, was allotted to the aforesaid granddaughter
of Fabian Tiongson. Once she is identified, it matters not that her
individual name is unknown. What mattered in this case was to specify
the portion of the land of her grandfather which is alleged to have
been allotted to her, so that it might be determined whether such
portion was the parcel here in question or said parcel was a part
thereof. This does not appear, nor are the portions alleged to have
been bought by the plaintiff Julian Santiago specified.

The
second error assigned chiefly raises a question of fact. The evidence
of record does not warrant a different conclusion from that of the
lower court with regard to said question.

As to the third
error assigned, it is a consequence of the preceding ones. With respect
to the land tax receipts constituting Exhibit C, said receipts do not
contain a description of the land and are not otherwise identified with
the land here in dispute.

The other errors assigned are deductions from the above.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, with the costs against the appellants. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.