JOSE ATIENZA, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. DOMINGA MANALOTO ET AL., OPPONENTS AND APPELLANTS.

Jose Atienza applied for the registration of the lands
described in plans A and B attached to his application, alleging that he had
inherited them from his deceased mother Paula Medina; that he and his
predecessors in interest have been in the quiet, peaceful and uninterrupted
possession of the lands as owners thereof for more than sixty years to date.

Opposition was entered thereto by the Director of Lands in
behalf of the Insular Government with respect to the two parcels of land on plan
Psu-31380, Exhibit A; and by Venancio Samson, Dominga Manaloto for her son Tomas
Morales, Guadalupe Manaloto, Candelaria Manaloto, and Enriqueta Manaloto for her
husband Agustin Basco, with regard to the four parcels of land on plan Psu-31380
and 31551. In the course of the proceeding the Director of Lands, represented by
the provincial fiscal, withdrew his opposition, as was done by the private
oppositors, with respect to the two parcels on plan Psu-31551, Exhibit B; hence
the private opposition has narrowed down to the two parcels on plan Psu-31380,
and his opposition was based upon the allegation that the oppositors being
descendants of one named Juana Medina, said parcels belong to the applicant and
the oppositors in common and pro indiviso.

The evidence adduced by both parties having been examined by
the trial court, judgment was rendered dismissing the opposition of the private
oppositors as to the two lots on plan Psu-31380, and ordering the adjudication
and registration of the four parcels of land sought to be registered in the name
of the applicant Jose Atienza, single, and 52 years of age.

The oppositors appealed from the lower court’s judgment and in
their brief make the following assignments of error: (a) The lower court
committed an error in not holding that the two parcels of land described on plan
Psu-31380, Exhibit A, the registration of which is opposed, were originally the
property of Juana Medina, mother of Paula Medina, alleged predecessor in
interest of the applicant, and that upon the death of said Juana Medina they
passed to her daughters and heiresses, Paula Medina and Juliana Sumira; (b) the
lower court erred in not finding that the two parcels of land in question
belonged to the applicant and the oppositors jointly, and that such joint
ownership still subsists; (c) the lower court likewise erred in dismissing the
appellants’ opposition and decreeing the adjudication and registration of the
two parcels of land in controversy in the name of the applicant and in denying
the motion for a new trial filed by the oppositors.

The questions raised in these assignments of error deal purely
ones of fact and refer to the appreciation of the evidence introduced by both
parties in this case. The trial court in its judgment says the following: “From
the applicant’s evidence as a whole, both documentary and oral, it appears that
the two parcels of land described on plan Psu31380 were acquired originally and
in part by his mother; that the remaining part was also obtained by said Paula
Medina, during her marriage with his father, Agripino Atienza; that at the death
of said Paula Medina, when the hitter’s estate was partitioned, said two parcels
were adjudicated to the applicant by his father Agripino Atienza as his legitime
and as an advance of his inheritance; that since the time he came into
possession thereof, he has exclusively enjoyed the income from these two parcels
and from the other two also, as his predecessors in interest had done, without
interruption, quietly and peacefully during the period fixed by the law for
acquiring the ownership of immovable property through prescription, in any case.

“As to the oppositors’ evidence, it appears from the same as a
whole, in brief, that they are descendants of Juana Medina, mother of Paula
Medina; that Paula Medina had a sister named Juliana Sumira; that the latter is
the mother of the oppositors surnamed Manaloto; that said oppositors have been
recognized as relatives by the applicant and others; and that on account of the
alleged joint ownership of the two parcels on the plan Psu-31380, these
oppositors participated in the harvest of the two parcels in question to the
extent of some 10 to 20 cavans of unhulled rice from each harvest annually. One
of the witnesses of these oppositors, however, stated in his application for the
registration of his property that the herein applicant was owner of the
adjoining land, said application has since been granted.”

And considering chiefly the witnesses’ behavior and the
preposterousness of an alleged participation only in rice from the harvests of a
piece of land so large as that on plan Psu-31380, the trial judge found against
the oppositors’ claim.

The appellants fail to show in their brief a single important
fact which the trial court did not take into account in judging the evidence,
and, therefore, the conclusions of fact deduced by the lower court should not be
disturbed, following the jurisprudence of this court in many cases, among others
(U. S. vs. Pico, 15 Phil., 549; U. S. vs. Benitez and Lipia, 18 Phil., 513; U.
S. vs. Melad, 27 Phil., 488).

In view of the evidence of record, we are of opinion that the
applicant’s possession and ownership of the lands in question have been proven
by a great preponderance of the evidence, and the judgment appealed from being
in accordance with law, it should be, as it is hereby, affirmed with costs
against the appellants. So ordered.

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