Title
Acuna vs. City of Manila
Case
G.R. No. L-3662
Decision Date
Nov 19, 1907
Plaintiffs proved land ownership via possessory title and testimony; City of Manila failed to show better claim, ordered to restore land and pay back rentals.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3662)

Facts:

Ownership and Possession of the Land

  • The plaintiffs, Vicenta Acuna and her children (Isabel, Rosario, Trinidad, Concepcion, Vicente, Generosa, Trinitario, Perpetua, and Victorina Salgado y Acuna), claimed ownership of a parcel of land in Quiapo, Manila.
  • The land was allegedly inherited from their father, Generoso Salgado, who inherited it from his father, Vicente Salgado.
  • Vicente Salgado was in possession of the land prior to 1865, and it remained in the family's possession until 1901, when the City of Manila took control of the property.

Evidence Presented by Plaintiffs

  • The plaintiffs presented a possessory information title, registered on May 24, 1893, as proof of ownership.
  • They also provided oral testimony from witnesses, including former tenants, who confirmed the family's possession and receipt of monthly rentals from tenants.
  • The last tenant, Dy Anco, paid ₱25 per month until the City of Manila took over the property in July 1901.

Defendant’s Claim

  • The City of Manila argued that the land was part of a public street, based on a map in its possession.
  • However, the city failed to present evidence of ownership or a better right to the property.

Trial Court’s Findings

  • The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the land belonged to Vicente Salgado and was inherited by his descendants.
  • The court ordered the City of Manila to restore possession of the land to the plaintiffs and pay ₱1,425 in back rentals (from 1901 to October 1, 1906), plus ₱25 per month until restitution was made.

Issue:

  1. Whether the plaintiffs had valid ownership and possession of the land in question.
  2. Whether the City of Manila had a better right to the property or if it was part of a public street.
  3. Whether the trial court erred in its findings regarding possession, ownership, and the amount of damages awarded.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.