Case Digest (G.R. No. 175881)
Facts:
Damaso Pascual v. Luis Sarmiento et al., G.R. No. 11951, November 20, 1917, the Supreme Court, Torres, J., writing for the Court (Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Carson, Araullo, Street, and Malcolm, JJ., concurring).
The plaintiff-appellant Damaso Pascual sued defendants-appellees Luis Sarmiento, Narciso Perez, and Petra de la Cruz in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan by a complaint filed July 22, 1914, asserting ownership of a parcel in Pug-pug (Bangat), Norzagaray, Bulacan (220,604 sq. m.). He alleged title through inheritance from Domingo Pascual and a subsequent absolute sale from Domingo’s heirs to him (notarized June 20, 1914), and charged that the defendants entered and withheld possession from about mid-July 1913, gathering its fruits. He sought possession, accounting for fruits, and damages; the defendants counterclaimed P300 for the cost of defending the suit.
The defendants answered denying the allegations and asserted they were long-standing owners in possession of the parcels they occupied; they relied on a prior action (No. 9106) for usurpation/unlawful detainer which they brought on January 28, 1913, against the heirs of Domingo Pascual and which resulted in a favorable judgment from the justice of the peace of Angat that became final for lack of a perfected appeal. The parties stipulated that the parcels occupied by defendants in the 1913 action were the same parcels now in controversy.
Evidence at trial showed (1) that Domingo Pascual had possessed the disputed land for many years before his death in 1912; (2) that his heirs held possession until 1913; (3) that the Norzagaray River had changed course about 1910, detaching portions of the defendants’ land and altering the practical boundary between the pueblos of Norzagaray and Angat; and (4) that the provincial board of Bulacan, after an inspection on February 27, 1914 (Exhibit 12), administratively fixed the old river channel as the boundary between the two pueblos pursuant to subsection (a) of section 1 of Act No. 82.
The trial judge of the Seventh Judicial District rendered judgment on September 29, 1915, finding each defendant owner of his respective parcel, concluding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his property right over the lands occupied...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the plaintiff prove his ownership, possession and the identity and boundaries of the whole land claimed so as to recover possession?
- If the Norzagaray River changed its course, did Article 370 of the Civil Code entitle the plaintiff to the land lying between the abandoned river bed and the new channel (i.e., to claim accretion beyond one...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)