G.R. No. L-27745 - Vera vs. Navarro

On January 14, 1911, Isidoro Alvano, the plaintiff, commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Norte.
The purpose of the action was to recover possession, as owner, of five parcels of land situated in the sitio of Cabalayangan, municipality of Dingras, Ilocos Norte.
The parcels were more particularly described by metes and bounds in the second paragraph of the complaint.

The trial was conducted before Judge Dionisio Chanco who, after hearing the evidence, ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the land.
The plaintiff subsequently appealed the decision.

During the trial, the plaintiff and two of the defendants (including Isidoro Alvano and Juan Alvano) testified that the land sought by the plaintiff was identical to the land occupied by the defendants.
Although the defendants attempted to create the appearance that the land they occupied was different from that described in the complaint, the collected evidence verified that the parcels in dispute were indeed the same.

The plaintiff contended that he had purchased the five parcels from the co-owners, namely Eusebio Alvano, Juan Alvano, and Apolonia Alvano, who he was related to as a brother-in-law.
In support of his claim, the plaintiff presented Exhibits A, B, and C, which identified the chain of title and purchase from the former owners.

In their answer, the defendants alleged that they had purchased the disputed parcels from Juan Alvano; however, no documentary evidence was provided to support this contention.
Defendant Leocadio Batoon, testifying as a witness for the plaintiff, mentioned that Juan Alvano had mortgaged the lands to the defendants.
No documentary evidence was submitted regarding the mortgage, nor was there proof showing that the mortgage contained any special provisions that would give the defendants the right to possession.
It was also established during the trial that Juan Alvano was the owner of only one-fourth of the property, meaning even a valid mortgage could at most confer possession over one-fourth of the land, not the entire property.

Whether the five parcels of land described by the plaintiff were indeed the same as those occupied by the defendants.

Whether the defendants’ claim to possession, based solely on the purported mortgage, was legally valid.
Whether the mortgage, if valid, could entitle the defendants to the possession of the entire property.

Whether Juan Alvano’s ownership of only one-fourth of the property affected the validity of using the mortgage as a claim to the full possession of the property.

Whether the plaintiff had sufficiently proven that he purchased the property from the former owners, thereby establishing his right to recover possession.