Facts:

The case of Baltazar Paminsan vs. Hermenegildo Costales et al. was initiated on July 27, 1908, in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Cagayan. The plaintiff, Baltazar Paminsan, sought to recover a parcel of land, approximately 15 hectares in size, from the defendants, which included Hermenegildo Costales, Isaac Costales, Francisco Torres, Regino Pontillas, and Julian Viernes. Paminsan claimed ownership of the land and asserted that he had been in peaceful possession from 1897 until 1901, when the defendants allegedly dispossessed him unlawfully. He sought a judgment for possession of the land and damages amounting to P2,000. The defendants initially demurred to the complaint, but the lower court overruled this demurrer. Subsequently, the defendants filed a general denial in response to the complaint. After evaluating the evidence, the lower court ruled in favor of Paminsan, confirming his ownership and ordering the sheriff to restore him to possession of the land. ...

Facts:

1. Ownership and Possession Claim: On July 27, 1908, the plaintiff, Baltazar Paminsan, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Cagayan to recover a parcel of land containing approximately 15 hectares. He claimed ownership and peaceful possession of the land from 1897 to 1901.
2. Alleged Illegal Dispossession: The plaintiff alleged that in 1901, the defendants (Hermenegildo Costales, Isaac Costales, Francisco Torres, Regino Pontillas, and Julian Viernes) illegally dispossessed him of the land and had remained in possession since then.
3. Relief Sought: The plaintiff sought recovery of possession, damages of P2,000 for illegal occupation, and costs.
4. Defendants' Response: The defendants initially demurred, which was overruled by the lower court. They later filed a general denial.
5. Death and Sale of Interests: During the proceedings, one defendant, Dionisio Costales, died, and his heirs did not file an answer. Another defendant, Francisco Torres, sold his interest in the land, but the vendee was not made a party to the case.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Sufficiency of Allegations: A complaint is sufficient if, assuming the facts alleged are true, the court can grant the relief prayed for. The plaintiff's allegations of ownership and illegal dispossession met this standard.
2. Good Faith Occupants: Defendants who occupy land in good faith, believing they have a right to possession, are not liable for damages arising from such occupation.
3. Effect of Death and Sale: The death of a defendant and the sale of a defendant's interest in the land do not affect the case unless the heirs or vendees are made parties to the action.