G.R. No. 2241 - Del Rosario vs. Lerma

Prudencia del Rosario, the plaintiff, filed a complaint seeking recovery of possession over a tract of land and damages, which included:

1,000 pesos for lost earnings;
500 dollars (gold) representing earnings received by the defendant from the land; and
500 dollars (gold) for the alleged unlawful dispossession.

The alleged dispossession stemmed from a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace in Manila on January 28, 1902, in an ejectment action initiated by Manuel Almeda, the defendant and legal representative of his wife, Severina Lerma.
Prudencia del Rosario did not appeal from that judgment, which could have been executed had not a temporary stay been granted.

The contested land was clearly identified and had already been the subject of the ejectment action in the lower court.
The plaintiff did not present documentary proof of ownership but instead based her claim on long possession. She testified that:

She was approximately 50 years old.
She had been in possession of the land for about 75 years, including the period when her brother Martin and their ancestors held it.

The court found, however, that the plaintiff’s possession was as a tenant under a lease contract with Jose Lerma y Lim, the father of Severina Lerma, indicating:

A written lease executed on May 3, 1897.
Additionally, a prior contract of lease dated August 26, 1893 corroborated her tenant status.

She executed a document on October 1, 1895, along with her husband Silverio Cabrera and witnessed by two persons, pledging two tracts of land to Sixto de la Cruz for 100 pesos. This document explicitly stated the lands were held under lease from Jose Lerma.
Her testimony during the trial was inconsistent—she repeatedly denied her knowledge of certain documents and even the ability to sign her name, while other documentary evidence showed her signature.

The defendants introduced documentary proof from judicial possessory proceedings (petitioned by Mariano Hernandez), which contradicted the plaintiff’s claims and helped establish her status as a mere tenant.

Jose Lerma y Lim, father of Severina Lerma, acquired the land from the Dominican Friars through composition with the Spanish Government.
The title deed was duly recorded in the Registry of Property.
Severina Lerma subsequently inherited a part of her father’s estate through a formal partition, and her title was likewise duly recorded.

The evidence showed that the plaintiff never possessed the land in an adverse manner; she only occupied it with the consent of the true owner.

The plaintiff’s possession as a tenant did not confer any right to acquire ownership by prescription.
The final judgment of ejectment (dated January 28, 1902) was applicable and her complaint was properly dismissed.

Whether possession as a tenant, regardless of its duration, can give rise to a claim for ownership under prescription.
Whether the plaintiff’s evidence, primarily showing possession and inconsistent testimony, is sufficient to override:

Documentary and parol evidence presented by the defendants establishing the true title.
The fact that her possession was with the owner’s consent.

Whether the final judgment in the ejectment action against her properly deprived her of the remedy she sought for recovery of possession and damages.