BALTAZAR PAMINSAN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. HERMENEGILDO COSTALES ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

On the 27th day of July, 1908, the plaintiff commenced an action in the Court
of First Instance of the Province of Cagayan, to recover from the defendants a
parcel of land described in paragraph 2 of the complaint, alleged to contain
about 15 hectares. The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner and had been in
the quiet and peaceable possession of said parcel of land from the year 1897 to
the year 1901; that in the year 1901 the defendants illegally and unlawfully
dispossessed him and have remained in the possession of said land ever since.
The plaintiff prayed for a judgment for the possession of the land and damages
for the illegal possession of the same in the sum of P2,000, and the costs.

To the complaint the defendants demurred, which was overruled by the lower
court.

Later the defendants answered by a general denial.

After hearing the evidence the lower court found that the plaintiff was the
owner of the land, and rendered a judgment directing the sheriff to put him in
the possession of the same and decreed that the defendants, Hermenegildo
Costales, Isaac Costales, Francisco Torres, Regino Pontillas, and Julian
Viernes, should pay, jointly and severally, to the plaintiff the sum of P500 as
damages for the use and occupation of said land, together with interest thereon
at the rate of six per cent, from the first day of September, 1908.

From that judgment the defendants appealed to this court.

The record shows that the defendant, Dionisio Costales, after the
commencement of the action and before the answer was filed, died. No answer was
presented by his personal representatives or his heirs.

The record also shows that Francisco Torres, after the commencement of the
present action, sold all of his alleged interest in the land in question. The
record does not show the name of his vendee, neither does it show that his
vendee entered into the possession of his (Francisco Torres’) parcel of land.
The vendee of Francisco Torres not having been made a party to the present
action, of course his interest cannot be affected by the conclusions reached in
this decision.

From an examination of the record brought to this court with due reference to
the different assignments of error made by the plaintiff, we are of the opinion
that the pre ponderance of the evidence shows that the plaintiff is the owner of
the land in question and is entitled to the possession of the same as against
the defendants, Hermenegildo Costales, Isaac Costales, Regino Pontillas, arid
Julian Viernes.

The lower court found that the plaintiff has been damaged by the use and
occupation on the part of the defendants of said land in the sum of F600. We
think that the pre-ponderance of the evidence adduced during the trial of the
cause shows that the defendants were occupying the land in question in good
faith. The record shows that at the time they entered upon the possession of
said land, they did so believing that they had a right to the possession of it.
That part of the judgment of the lower court must therefore be reversed.

One of the assignments of error presented by the appellant is that the lower
court committed an error in overruling the demurrer presented by them. By that
assignment of error the appellants allege that the facts stated in the petition
of the plaintiff were not sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The test
of the sufficiency of the facts found in a petition to constitute a cause of
action is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a
valid judgment upon the same, in accordance with the prayer of the petition. In
the present case the plaintiff alleged two facts: (1) That he was the owner of
the land; and (2) that the defendants had illegally dispossessed him of the
same. Upon these facts he prayed that the defendants be required to return to
him the possession of said land and to pay damages. Admitting the facts alleged
to be true, the plaintiff was clearly entitled to the relief prayed for. We find
that the lower court committed no error in overruling the demurrer.

Therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby ordered and decreed
that a judgment be entered affirming that part of the judgment of the lower
court which declares that the plaintiff is the owner of the land in question and
entitled to the possession of the same, and that part of the judgment of the
lower court which requires the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the sum of
P500, together with interest, is hereby reversed. Without any finding as to
costs, it is so ordered.

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