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 ...

Facts:

Parties and Procedural Background

• Plaintiffs:

- Isabel, Rosario, Trinidad, Concepcion, Vicente, Generosa, Trinitario, Perpetua, and Victorina Salgado y Acuna, who are the children of the deceased Generoso Salgado. - Representation by their mother, Vicenta Acuna, acting as administratrix on behalf of the minor children. - The City of Manila, which is alleged to have taken possession of the disputed parcel of land. - Two primary objects:

Land Title and Possessory Evidence

• Title Proceedings:

- The plaintiffs filed proceedings of possessory information for the title to the land. - The title was duly registered on May 24, 1893, in the register of property of the City of Manila, within the district of Quiapo, where the property is located. - Oral testimony concerning the material fact of possession. - Evidence of payment of monthly rentals by various tenants who occupied portions of the property. - Proof of continued occupancy by a last tenant under a lease arrangement, maintained until the property was taken over by the City of Manila in July 1901. - After July 1901, the defendant continued to receive the monthly rental from the last tenant—the same tenant who constructed a house of durable materials on the land.

Historical Chain of Possession and Administration

• Initial Possession and Ownership:

- The land was in the possession of Vicente Salgado prior to the year 1865. - Upon Vicente Salgado’s death, possession transferred to his son, Generoso Salgado. - Upon the death of Generoso Salgado in 1881, right of ownership and possession passed to his children, the plaintiffs. - Vicenta Acuna administered the property on behalf of her children from the demise of Generoso Salgado until the City of Manila took possession in 1901.

Evidence and Testimonies Submitted

• Testimonies in Support of Possession:

- Multiple witnesses corroborated the fact that the land was held and administered by members of the Salgado family. - Witnesses such as Ildefonso Tambunting and Vicenta Acuna confirmed the possession by Vicente Salgado, while other tenants testified about the lease arrangement. - It was proven that a lease existed for the said property at a rate of 25 pesos per month. - This lease arrangement was maintained from 1901 until the judicial intervention up to October 1, 1906, and beyond, meriting the claim for damages.

Defendant’s Position and Evidence Presented

• Defendant’s Argument:

- The City of Manila claimed the property was formerly part of a public street based on a map in its possession. - Aside from the map theory, the city failed to produce conclusive evidence of its ownership or a superior right to the property. - The city’s allegation regarding refusing Dy Anco a license to build a house was also presented but did not outweigh the evidence favoring the plaintiffs.

Trial Court’s Findings and Judgment

• Findings on Possession and Ownership:

- The court determined that Vicente Salgado possessed the land prior to 1865 and maintained it until his death. - Subsequently, Generoso Salgado continued the possession until his demise, after which the rights passed to his children. - Vicenta Acuna’s role as administratrix was acknowledged as valid and beneficent to her children from the time of her husband’s death until 1901. - The court accepted the evidence that the lease rate was 25 pesos per month. - It awarded damages covering the period from 1901 up to October 1, 1906, and continued from that date until the property was restored to the plaintiffs. - The trial court ordered the restoration of possession of the land to the plaintiffs and mandated payment of the determined rental amounts plus court costs.

Issue:

Sufficiency of Possessory and Title Evidence

• Whether the proceedings of possessory information and the registration of the title provided sufficient evidence to establish the plaintiffs’ right over the property.
• The weight and credibility of the oral testimonies in affirming prior possession from Vicente Salgado to his heirs.

Validity of the Administrative Succession

• Whether Vicenta Acuna’s role as administratrix was correctly recognized in maintaining the estate on behalf of her minor children after Generoso Salgado’s demise.
• The correctness of concluding that possession and control transitioned to the plaintiffs through familial succession.

Evaluation of Rental Transactions

• Whether the evidence substantiates that the lease of the property at 25 pesos per month was valid and continuous despite the interference by the City of Manila.
• The correctness of computing the damages based on the established lease rate up to the time of judicial restitution.

Legitimacy of the Defendant’s Claims

• Whether the defendant’s theory that the property was originally part of a public street is credible absent definitive evidentiary support.
• The impact of the defendant’s failure to produce substantial evidence regarding a better right or ownership over the property.

Procedural and Evidentiary Considerations

• Whether the trial court was correct in accepting the testimonies of the several witnesses, especially in relation to critical facts such as possession history and lease details.
• The appropriateness of the appellate court’s review of the seven assignments of error raised by the defendant.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)