FORTUNATO GASPAR, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ANACLETO QUINDARA AND DANIEL ABUNDO, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Plaintiff in this action seeks to eject defendants from the parcel of land
described in the complaint. He claims that his father gave him the land as a
wedding gift, the father having purchased it in 1901 from the original owners;
that by virtue of an oral agreement between his father and the defendants, made
at the time when his father purchased the land, the defendant Abundo and the
predecessor in interest of the defendant Quindara secured permission to build
the houses on this land now occupied by them, under an oral agreement to pay an
annual rental of 15 manojos of rice for each house, and to surrender
possession on demand.

A deed of sale of certain real estate to the father of the plaintiff for the
sum of 100 pesos was introduced in evidence, and certain witnesses were called
who claimed that they were present when the deed was executed, at which time, as
they allege, the oral understanding was entered into by which permission, was
given for the erection of the defendants’ houses under the alleged rental
agreement.

The defendants and their witnesses testified that their houses had been built
long prior to the date of the alleged sale to plaintiff’s father, and that these
houses together with the land on which they stand had been occupied by them and
their predecessors in interest ever since under claim of ownership.

The evidence of the plaintiff in support of his claim of ownership is in the
highest degree unsatisfactory, and to our minds it wholly fails to establish
title to the land in question. It is not by any means clear that the land in
question is the land referred to in the private deed to plaintiff’s father; and
even if it be granted that it is, the evidence in support of title in the vendor
is not convincing. Indeed, it fails utterly to establish even a better right to
possession in plaintiff or his predecessors in interest than that of defendants
and their predecessors in interest, unless we accept the testimony of the
witnesses touching the alleged rental contract.

In support of plaintiff’s allegations as to the alleged rental contract we
have the testimony of plaintiff himself, and that of some of his witnesses who
claim to have been present at the time when the deed of sale was executed, at
which time it is said the oral agreement was entered into. But this testimony is
vague, uncertain and indefinite, and falls far short of being sufficient to
establish the existence of such an oral agreement.

Defendants and their predecessors in interest have been in possession of
their houses and of the land on which they are constructed for more than ten
years. There is not a particle of evidence of record which even tends to prove
that they ever paid any rent during all that period, On the contrary, plaintiff
admits that they refused so to do, and that they have persistently denied his
claim of ownership and insisted that they themselves are the owners of these
houses and the land on which they are built. The defendants claim that they have
always paid the taxes on the land in question, and the official tax receipts
corroborate their claim, at least as far back as 1908. If the testimony as to
the alleged oral rental contract were true it would seem that it would have been
possible for plaintiff to offer evidence tending to support his claim that these
defendants held the land in question under an agreement to pay rent therefor.
But the only evidence in this regard is the testimony of one witness who swore
that in 1908 and again in 1910 one of the defendants borrowed money from him,
and told him that he needed the money to pay his rent to the plaintiff for the
use of the land on which his house stood. But the probability that this witness
spoke the truth is put in doubt by the testimony of the plaintiff himself, who
swore that in both those years this defendant refused absolutely to pay any
rent, and denied the right of plaintiff to demand it.

The plaintiff in an action of ejectment must show by a preponderance of the
evidence a good and valid title or interest in the premises, and can only
recover possession on the strength of his own title, and not because of the
weakness or want of title in the defendants.

On the whole record we are well satisfied that plaintiff has failed to
establish his title by a preponderance of the evidence, and we conclude
therefore that the judgment of the court below should be reversed, without costs
to either party in this instance, and that the complaint should be dismissed
without day. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, J.,
concur.