G.R. No. L-5797 - De la Cruz vs. Nino

On March 17, 1905, Marcelo de la Cruz filed a written complaint with the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte.
He alleged that he was the owner of twenty-six parcels of landed property in the pueblo of Dingras and three in Laoag, with specific areas and boundaries described in the complaint.
For nearly two years, the defendants—Nicolas Nino, Eulalio Vicente, and Nemesio Vicente—were alleged to have been detaining, cultivating, and unlawfully utilizing half of these properties and the fruits produced thereon.
The relief sought was the recovery of possession of the lands along with the fruits accrued in the past two years, in addition to compensation for any other damages and costs.

The defendants denied the allegations in the complaint, asserting that any allegations regarding detainment were false.
They claimed ownership of one-half of the twenty-eight parcels, insisting that they held the properties under just title and lawful right.
They resolved to prove their title when proper evidence was adduced in due course and requested judgment in their favor along with an assessment of the suit’s costs against the plaintiff.

Before trial, Santos Jarapan filed a claim of intervention, asserting his ownership of the lands since November 15, 1871, acquired under just title, except for those properties in Cadalayapan, Caandongan, and Polonday.
Jarapan claimed that his prolonged absence led him to delegate the care of his properties to a trustworthy person, who later disappeared during the 1898 insurrection.
He contended that possession of the lands by both de la Cruz and the defendants was illegal since he was the true owner, urging the court to order the immediate delivery of the lands to him and to assess costs to the plaintiff and the defendants.

The case involved oral evidence from both the plaintiff and the defendants, establishing various factual assertions concerning the properties and their titles.
The litigation featured detailed documentary evidence including a public instrument of acquisition (dated June 8, 1888), a possessory information title (approved September 10, 1894), and a partition instrument (Exhibit C) evidencing common ownership.
Additionally, an instrument exhibited by the plaintiff as Exhibit F involved a mortgage transaction indicating that Marcelo de la Cruz, at one time, owed money to Feliciano Vicente in connection with the land purchase.

The plaintiff’s claim was based on documents allegedly rendering him the sole owner of the property, except for the three parcels in Bacud not recorded in the instruments used.
The defendants argued that the lands were acquired jointly by de la Cruz and the late Feliciano Vicente, with the documents (although drawn up in the name of de la Cruz) evidencing a partnership later partitioned equally under Exhibit C.
Evidence from witnesses during the trial corroborated the common acquisition and subsequent division of the lands between the two partners.

On September 23, 1905, the trial court rendered judgment absolving the defendants—Nicolas Nino, Eulalio Vicente, and Nemesio Vicente—from de la Cruz’s complaint.
Likewise, the action brought by the intervener, Santos Jarapan, was dismissed.
The costs of the trial were apportioned equally between the plaintiff and the intervener.
Subsequent motions by the plaintiff and intervener for annulment or a new trial were overruled, leading to the filing of bills of exceptions by the appellants which were certified and forwarded accordingly.

Whether Marcelo de la Cruz established his claim as the sole owner of all the contested properties through the public instrument of acquisition and possessory information title, particularly when documents indicated a joint acquisition with Feliciano Vicente.

The contest on whether the instruments proving title—Exhibits A and B—adequately supported his claim of exclusive ownership for all parcels.
The matter of the three parcels in Bacud whose acquisition was not recorded in the said instruments.

Whether the partition instrument (Exhibit C) to divide property equally between de la Cruz and Vicente should be given full legal effect despite being drawn up in de la Cruz’s name.

The authenticity and unquestioned acknowledgment of Exhibit C by de la Cruz during his testimony.
The equitable division of the common property as stipulated under the agreement between the partners.

Whether the mortgage instrument (Exhibit F) indicated that de la Cruz’s alleged indebtedness to Feliciano Vicente influenced the title and possession of the lands.

The implications of the mortgage transaction on the overall property ownership.
The evidentiary significance of the authentication of Exhibit F by witnesses rather than by Feliciano Vicente himself.

Whether Santos Jarapan, as an intervener, sufficiently proved his claim to ownership of the disputed lands by establishing both his title and the precise identity of the properties.

The failure of Exhibits E and F to provide exact descriptions, which undermined Jarapan’s claim.
The established ownership by the plaintiff and defendants as proven by the record.