Case Digest (G.R. No. 1284)
Facts:
The City of Manila v. Jacinto Del Bosario, G.R. No. 1284, November 10, 1905, the Supreme Court, Mapa, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was the City of Manila and the defendant-appellant was Jacinto del Bosario.
The City sued to recover possession of two lots abutting Calles Clavel and Barcelona in the district of Tondo, then occupied by the defendant. The trial court entered judgment for the City awarding possession, damages of $2,500 (United States currency), and costs. At trial, after the City rested, the defendant moved for dismissal on the ground that plaintiff had failed to prove the allegations in the complaint; the trial court overruled that motion and the defendant excepted.
The City introduced documentary and oral evidence. Witness testimony included John R. Wilson, Eduardo Timoteo, Juan Villegas, Sotera Roco, Lorenzo del Rosario, and Modesto Reyes (city attorney). Their testimony was equivocal or hearsay as to ownership: Wilson disclaimed personal knowledge; Timoteo said the streets formed part of Plaza Divisoria formerly belonging to the Central Government; Villegas testified by hearsay that land in the Gran Divisoria belonged to the City; Sotera Roco related a hearsay payment for a possessory action; Lorenzo del Rosario admitted signing two documents offering to purchase the land but said he signed one under a misapprehension it belonged to the City and the later one at municipal advice.
Documentary evidence included a city map (whose provenance and accuracy were not proved) and two public instruments dated March 7, 1900, between the defendant and Telesfora Apostol y Perea, which described the defendant as owner in fee simple and showed registered title. The City also introduced the two instruments signed by Lorenzo del Rosario (1891 petition and 1901 letter), which the Court treated as offers of compromise. The City’s complaint itself admitted that the defendant’s possession of the lots was recorded since February 23, 1893 (one lot) and March 1901 (the other).
On appeal to the Supreme Court (ordinary appeal from the trial court judgment), the Court examined admissibility and probative value of the evidence, the application of sections of the Code of Civil Procedure (secs. 278, 334 para. 11, and 346), and Article 448 of the Civil Code regarding presumption of just titl...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in overruling the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure of the plaintiff to establish the allegations in the complaint?
- Did the City prove ownership or right to possession of the lots in question?
- Were the documents offered by the City (the 1891 and 1901 writings of Lorenzo del Rosario and the city map) admissible and sufficient to show the City’s title?
- Did the public instruments and the record of the defendant’s possession give rise to the presumption of just title under Arti...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)