G.R. No. 5413 - Rodriguez y HermaNo.vs. Taino

Vicente Rodriguez and his brothers, the plaintiffs, filed a complaint on February 18, 1909, with the Court of First Instance of Tayabas.
The complaint was an amendment to an earlier filing (January 5) and alleged ownership of a parcel of rice land in Barrio Remedios, Mauban, Tayabas, commonly sown with 2 1/2 cavanes of seed.

The land in question is bounded on the north by Epifania Rodriguez’s property, on the east by lands of Clara Escueta, and on the south and west by the Quinainit River.
The plaintiffs asserted they had occupied the parcel until 1906 when they were dispossessed by the defendant, Jose Taino.

Jose Taino, the defendant, in his answer, denied the allegations except those portions he later admitted or modified.
He asserted that the disputed land belonged to Epifania Rodriguez Sanchez, a native of the Islands residing in Cadiz, Spain.
Taino maintained that he had taken possession of the land in 1906 as the duly authorized administrator of Epifania Rodriguez’s properties in Tayabas, and he continued to hold it in that capacity.

The case went to trial where the plaintiffs presented testimonies from witnesses such as Bamon Rodriguez and Igmidio Talabon.
The defendant presented his witnesses, including Hugo Lopez and Francisco Pastrana.
Although the trial testimony was not recorded stenographically, the bill of exceptions attested that the facts established in the judgment were as stated.

The Court of First Instance, on March 31, 1909, rendered a judgment ordering the defendant to restore the possession of the land to the plaintiffs and to pay the costs.
On April 5, following the judgment, the defendant motioned for a new trial on the grounds that the judgment was erroneous with respect to both the law and the evidence; his motion was denied.
The defendant took exception and filed a bill of exceptions, which was duly certified and forwarded to the clerk of the appellate court.

The plaintiffs’ action sought the restitution of possession of the land, which had been usurped by the defendant.
The legal action is grounded on the right to recover possession unlawfully taken by a third party, as provided under the relevant legal provisions.

Whether the defendant’s occupation of the land, taken in his capacity as administrator of Epifania Rodriguez, amounted to unlawful usurpation of the plaintiffs' peaceful and longstanding possession.
Whether the legal remedy of recovery of possession (accion publiciana) is maintainable despite the subsequent claim of title by the defendant as an administrator.
Whether, under the provisions of the Civil Code (specifically Articles 444 and 446) and established jurisprudence, the plaintiffs were entitled to immediate restitution of possession irrespective of any title dispute.
Whether the trial court’s ordering of the restitution of possession and the corresponding denial of a new trial motion conformed to proper legal principles and precedents.