LUIS ESPERANZA AND BALTAZAR BULLO, AS ATTORNEYS IN FACT FOR FLORENTINO ESPERANZA, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. ANDREA CATINDING, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

(attorneys in fact) for and on behalf of Florentino
Esperanza, for the recovery of certain described real property situated at
Anaoaon, municipality of Surigao, Province of Surigao, and which the petition
alleges is unlawfully held and claimed by the defendant.

Upon the proof adduced at the trial of the cause judgment was entered in the
court below dismissing the complaint, and from this judgment the present appeal
is prosecuted.

The trial judge made a very full statement of the facts upon which he based
his judgment, and after a careful examination of the record we are of opinion
that the record fully supports the conclusions reached by the lower court.
Practically the only question presented by this appeal is the degree of credit
which should have been accorded to the witnesses who testified. Not only have
the plaintiffs failed to establish their contention by a preponderance of the
evidence but even out of the mouths of their own witnesses they have refuted the
very facts upon which their claim rests.

The record establishes that one Julian Catmon, the grandfather of the
defendant, was the owner and in possession of various parcels of land during his
lifetime, including the parcel now in question. After his death these several
parcels of land were partitioned among his children and the parcel in question
came into the possession of his daughter Venancia Catmon, who was married to
Ramon Catinding and to whom there were born four children, Policarpio, Andrea
(the defendant), Ruperto and Eulogio. The record shows that Venancia Catmon and
Ramon Catinding were married during the lifetime of Julian Catmon and that they
built a small house on the land and lived there for a number of years. Andrea
Catinding, the defendant, appears to have made her home with her grandfather,
Julian Catmon, who lived in another house nearby on the same land. Venancia
Catmon the first wife of Ramon Catinding and the mother of the defendant, died,
and shortly therefore Ramon Catinding married one Sabina Butron and with his
second wife came and lived on the land in question for a short space of
time.

The record does not establish the dates of these various events. It merely
shows that for many years the land in question was in the possession of the
grandfather; that it passed from him to his daughter Venancia, who with her
husband Ramon Catinding and their children continued living on the land; that
after the death of Venancia the surviving husband Ramon married again and came
and lived with his second wife on the land for a short time only. In the
meantime it appears that Andrea, the defendant, had married a Spaniard named
Gonzalez, who died in 1896. During at least a part of the time that Andrea was
married to Gonzalez she did not live on the land, but it appears that her
brother Eulogio, who was married at this time, had been living on the land. The
record shows that there were at least two houses on this land. After the death
of her husband in 1896 Andrea returned to the land and has continued living
there up to the present time, or at any rate was living on the land at the time
his action was instituted.

In December, 1898, Ramon Catinding and Sabina Butron executed a deed to the
land in question to Baltazar Bullo who claims that he purchased it for his
grandson Florentino Esperanza, and again in May, 1904, Ramon Catinding and
Sabina Butron went before a justice of the peace at Surigao and executed another
deed to Baltazar Bullo for the same land. This last deed appears to have been
executed in order to overcome any defects that might be found in the first
instrument. A great deal of the proof offered by plaintiffs relates to the
execution of these deeds. It is not denied that these deeds were executed but it
is claimed by the defendant that Ramon Catinding and Sabina Butron had no title
whatever to the land, and for that reason no rights or interests which could be
conveyed by these deeds.

Plaintiffs deny that the land in question was ever a part of the land of
defendant’s grandfather, Julian Catmon, or that it had ever been the property of
Venancia Catmon, defendant’s mother; they assert that the land was entered upon
by Ramon Catinding and Sabina Butron while it was yet unclaimed and uncultivated
land; that it was first cultivated by them and that their title in the land was
by reason of this original occupancy. While the plaintiffs introduced some
evidence tending to establish this fact they utterly failed to establish it by a
preponderance of the evidence. Even the plaintiffs’ own witnesses, Maria Ciceros
(pp. 35, 36, 37 of the record) and Baltazar Bullo, the person who claims to have
purchased the land (pp. 41 and 42), admitted that the defendant had been in
possession of this land for a number of years at the time the deed was executed,
and had been cultivating the land and receiving the benefits therefrom. On the
other hand the defendant introduced a number of witnesses who were familiar with
the land in question and who testified positively and emphatically that the land
had formerly belonged to Julian Catmon, had descended from him to his daughter
Venancia, and that it had been held and claimed by her children since her death.
The record seems to be conclusive upon the fact that Ramon Catinding’s
connection with this land was by reason of his wife’s ownership and that she had
inherited it from her father; To reach any other conclusion means absolutely to
disregard the weight of the evidence in the record. The record does not support
the conclusion that Ramon Catinding and his second wife, Sabina Butron, were the
first to enter upon this land and cultivate it, and without proof of that
alleged fact the whole case for the plaintiffs must fall.

But while we have reviewed the evidence of record in this case for a similar
reason to that announced for a like action in the case of Arroyo vs. Granada (18
Phil. Rep., 484), that is to say, in the hope that what we have said “may have
the effect of forestalling further litigation” the judgment entered in the court
below must be modified, under the authority of the former decision, so as to
provide for the dismissal of the complaint, not upon the merits, but upon the
ground that the action was not properly instituted, having been brought in the
name of apoderados (attorneys in fact), and not in the name of the real party in
interest.

Let judgment be entered modifying the judgment entered in the court below, so
as to provide for a dismissal of the complaint, not upon the merits, but on the
ground that it was improperly instituted, not having been brought in the name of
the real party in interest, with the costs of both instances against the
appellants.

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