Facts:

In the case of Jose Arguelles vs. Toribia Montalvo, decided on July 21, 1915, the dispute arose over a parcel of land that adjoined the properties of the plaintiff, Jose Arguelles, and the defendant, Toribia Montalvo. The contested area measured 4 meters in the north-south direction and 7 meters and 10 centimeters in the east-west direction, with a value of P200. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had unlawfully taken possession of this portion of land. Consequently, Arguelles sought a declaration of ownership over the disputed area, restoration of possession, and indemnity for damages amounting to P100, along with the costs of the suit. The case was initially tried in the Court of First Instance of Batangas, where the court found that the plaintiff's claims were substantiated by his own testimony, corroborated by witnesses Graciano Babao and Gavino del Rosario, as well as by Exhibits A, B, and C, which were admitted into evidence. The trial court concluded that t...

Facts:

Parties and Property Description

• Plaintiff and Appellee: Jose Arguelles, owner of the disputed lot.
• Defendant and Appellant: Toribia Montalvo, owner of the adjoining lot.
• The properties of the parties adjoin, with the dispute arising over a specific strip of land.

Disputed Parcel of Land

• The portion in dispute is described as a strip measuring 4 meters north and south and 7 meters, 10 centimeters east and west.
• The parcel is valued at P200, and defendant’s act of taking possession is at issue.

Evidence and Boundary Determination

• Plaintiff’s evidence includes his own positive testimony and that of witnesses Graciano Babao and Gavino del Rosario.
• Documentary evidence in the form of Exhibits A, B, and C was submitted by the plaintiff.
• The fence constructed by the plaintiff on the northern boundary – erected on the remains of an earlier fence – is identified as the true dividing line between the two properties.

Property Titles and Measurements

• Plaintiff presented property titles that describe the dimensions of his lot: Exhibits A and B indicate the lot measures 2212 varas in length, while Exhibit C sets the measurement as 2112 varas from north to south.
• The measurement in the titles is accepted as correct unless the adverse party introduces compelling contrary evidence.

Conduct of the Parties and Their Representations

• Plaintiff maintained and improved the boundaries by erecting a fence and inclosing his land with a growing hedge of madre cacao trees—actions in line with his property rights.
• Defendant did not protest the presence of the old fence nor produce his own set of property titles when requested by plaintiff.

Relief Sought and Lower Court Decision

• Plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership over the disputed parcel, restoration of possession, indemnity of P100 for losses and damages, and the payment of suit costs.
• The trial court found the plaintiff’s evidence to be preponderant and in accordance with his property titles, ultimately ordering defendant to restore possession of the parcel, pay P100 as damages, and shoulder the costs of the suit.
• Defendant filed an appeal against this decision.

Issue:

Determination of the True Boundary

• Whether the fence erected by the plaintiff, built on the vestiges of the old fence, constitutes the true dividing line between the two properties.
• Whether the physical evidence, including the location of the fence and the lack of protest by the defendant concerning the old fence, is sufficient to support the plaintiff’s claim.

Validity and Acceptance of Property Documents

• Whether the measurement of the disputed lot, as stated in the plaintiff’s property titles (and corroborated by Exhibits A, B, and C), should prevail in the boundary determination.
• Whether the absence of corresponding evidence from the defendant (such as his own property titles) undermines his position regarding a different boundary.

Compensation for Losses and Damages

• Whether the evidence supports the awarding of P100 to the plaintiff as losses and damages arising from the defendant’s unauthorized possession of the disputed parcel.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)