Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5647)
Facts:
Lorenzo Fortuna et al. v. Aurea Corrales et al., G.R. No. 5647. November 23, 1910, the Supreme Court, Torres, J., writing for the Court (Arellano, C.J., Johnson and Trent, JJ., concur; Moreland, J., concurs in the result).The plaintiffs, brothers Lorenzo Fortuna and Melecio Dionisio Fortuna, sued Aurea Corrales and her husband Lazaro Alapriz, alleging ownership and quiet, peaceable possession of twenty-six named rural parcels in the pueblo of Narvacan inherited from their father, Valentin Fortuna. They alleged that at the beginning of 1908 the defendants seized the plaintiffs' share of the crops (palay, corn and sweet potatoes valuing P49.30), thereafter forbade tenants from accounting to the plaintiffs, and threatened eviction; plaintiffs sought delivery of the fruits (or their value), an injunction against further disturbance, P300 damages, and costs.
The defendants admitted the first paragraph of the complaint but denied the rest and set up title and possession in Aurea Corrales as transferee of her aunt Patricia Fortuna, who, they alleged, had been in uninterrupted, peaceable possession of the lands for about eighteen to twenty years. The defendants amended their answer to assert in detail that Patricia had succeeded the original owner and had gifted the lands to Aurea by a notarial instrument dated February 19, 1908.
The case was tried with oral testimony and documentary evidence; both parties excepted to certain exhibits as shown in the bill of exceptions. On May 25, 1909, the trial court rendered judgment absolving the defendants. The plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which was denied; they then certified their bill of exceptions and forwarded the record to this Court for review.
The record showed that the plaintiffs produced a composition title issued to Valentin Fortuna by the Direccion General de Administracion Civil on February 8, 1893, but the defendants were in actual, peaceable possession of the disputed parcels (except J, O, P, and T). Evidence established that the lands originally belonged to Petrona Fortuna, who had executed a will (leaving some bequests but not disposing of most of the property), that she appointed Patricia to administer the unbequeathed property, that Patricia succeeded in possession and later made a gift to Aurea, and that tenants testified to continuous possession by Petrona, Patricia and finally Aurea.
The trial record also showed that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the lands they claimed, yet their complaint pleaded...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the plaintiffs' complaint stated a proper cause of action to recover the fruits and to enjoin interference when the plaintiffs were not in possession of the lands claimed.
- Whether the defendants were correctly absolved because Aurea Corrales acquired and held the lands by continuous, public, adverse possession in good faith and under good title, such as to...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)