Title
Asombra vs. Dorado
Case
G.R. No. 11353
Decision Date
Sep 21, 1917
Aurelio Asombra sought an injunction against Benita Dorado and Felix Gesmundo for land possession. The court ruled in favor of the defendants, affirming their ownership based on evidence, and denied the injunction.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 11353)

Facts:

  1. Commencement of the Action:
    The case was initiated by Aurelio Asombra (plaintiff) in the Court of First Instance of Laguna on April 22, 1914. The original purpose was to obtain a perpetual injunction against Benita Dorado and Felix Gesmundo (defendants) to prevent them from interfering with his possession of a specific parcel of land.

  2. Plaintiff's Allegations:
    Asombra claimed ownership of the land and alleged that the defendants were continuously molesting him in his possession, illegally reaping crops and fruits from the land, and would continue to do so unless restrained by the court.

  3. Defendants' Response:
    The defendants countered that they were the lawful owners of the land and had been in peaceful and lawful possession for over 20 years.

  4. Trial Court Decision:
    After hearing the evidence, Judge Pedro Concepcion ruled in favor of the defendants, declaring them the owners of the land and dismissing Asombra's complaint. The court absolved the defendants from liability.

  5. Appeal:
    Asombra appealed the decision, raising three assignments of error:

    • Admission of Exhibit 1 without objection.
    • Admission of Exhibit 2, a certified copy of a prior criminal action, despite objections regarding proper certification.
    • The court's declaration of the defendants as owners and refusal to issue a perpetual injunction.
  6. Exhibits and Evidence:

    • Exhibit 1: Admitted without objection, it supported the defendants' claim of ownership.
    • Exhibit 2: A certified copy of a prior criminal action where the justice of the peace ruled that the defendants were the owners and not criminally liable for their actions on the land.
  7. Court's Findings:
    Both parties presented evidence of ownership through inheritance and tax declarations. The trial court found the defendants' evidence more credible, and the appellate court affirmed this, citing the preponderance of evidence in favor of the defendants.

Issue:

  1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting Exhibit 1.
  2. Whether the trial court erred in admitting Exhibit 2 despite objections regarding its certification.
  3. Whether the trial court erred in declaring the defendants as owners and refusing to issue a perpetual injunction.

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.