Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3662)
Facts:
The case involves Vicenta Acuna and her children, Isabel, Rosario, Trinidad, Concepcion, Vicente, Generosa, Trinitario, Perpetua, and Victorina Salgado y Acuna, who are the plaintiffs and appellees. They filed a suit against the City of Manila, the defendant and appellant, seeking to recover possession of a parcel of land that they claim belongs to them but is currently held by the city. The events leading to the case began with the plaintiffs asserting their ownership of the property, which they allege was taken over by the City of Manila in July 1901. To substantiate their claim, the plaintiffs presented a title to the property, which was registered on May 24, 1893, along with oral evidence of their possession and the receipt of monthly rentals from tenants who occupied the land. The last tenant, who had a lease for the entire property, continued to pay rent to the city after it took possession. The City of Manila contended that the property was part of a public street, as ...
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:
- Whether the plaintiffs had valid ownership and possession of the land in question.
- Whether the City of Manila had a better right to the property or if it was part of a public street.
- Whether the trial court erred in its findings regarding possession, ownership, and the amount of damages awarded.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)