Case Digest (G.R. No. 5002)
Facts:
Martin Belen et al. v. Alejo Belen, G.R. No. 5002. March 18, 1909, the Supreme Court, Torres, J., writing for the Court.On October 4, 1907, plaintiffs and appellants Martin Belen and Honoria Belen (both minors) filed an amended complaint against defendant and appellee Alejo Belen, asking that a guardian ad litem (proposed: Gerardo Belen) be appointed to represent them. They alleged that several years before 1888, Getulio Belen (during his marriage to Juliana Fanoy) acquired large tracts of land—two parcels planted with some 600 coconut trees each—situated in Barrio Santa Maria Magdalena, San Pablo, La Laguna, and identified the adjacent owners and bounds of the parcels.
The complaint recited that Getulio died intestate in 1888; Juliana later remarried Gerardo Belen and bore the plaintiffs Honoria (born Nov. 20, 1890) and Martin (born Nov. 10, 1892). Juliana died intestate on July 15, 1895, leaving four children (Marciana, Feliciano, Honoria, Martin). Marciana died Aug. 23, 1900, and Feliciano died May 2, 1902, without administration or debts; the plaintiffs alleged they were the surviving heirs and that, in 1902, Alejo Belen took possession of the two parcels without title, refused to return them despite demands, and appropriated their fruits and profits (alleged value P4,000). The plaintiffs prayed for declaration of exclusive ownership, return of the lands, payment of P4,000, and costs.
The defendant demurred (overruled) and then answered, denying the allegations and asserting ownership. He alleged one parcel was acquired by inheritance from his mother Valeria Alcantara (who purportedly bought it from Ramon Biglete in 1885) and the other parcel came to him by inheritance from his father Facundo Belen upon partition. He asked for judgment absolving him with costs.
After trial and receipt of evidence and exhibits, the lower court rendered judgment on March 10, 1908, absolving the defendant from the complaint and awarding costs against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' motion for a new trial (for judgment being contrary to the weight of evidence) was overruled; their exception and bill of exceptions were p...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the plaintiffs prove ownership and the identity of the two parcels they claimed so as to recover possession and damages?
- Was the lower court correct in absolving the defendant from the complaint, given his possession and...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)