Title
Belen vs. Belen
Case
G.R. No. 5002
Decision Date
Mar 18, 1909
Minors Martin and Honoria Belen sued Alejo Belen for two disputed land parcels, claiming inheritance from their parents. Alejo asserted ownership through his parents. The court ruled in Alejo's favor, citing insufficient proof of plaintiffs' ownership and upholding his lawful possession.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 5002)

Factual Background

The plaintiffs, both minors, filed an amended complaint on October 4, 1907, seeking to appoint Gerardo Belen as their guardian ad litem. They claimed ownership of two parcels of land planted with coconut trees, asserting that these lands were part of the estate inherited by their deceased mother, Juliana Fanoy. Getulio Belen, their biological father, died intestate in 1888, while Juliana married Gerardo Belen and had the plaintiffs thereafter. Following Juliana's death in 1895, the plaintiffs' claim was based on the assertion that Alejo Belen unlawfully took possession of the lands after Feliciano's death in 1902 without a valid title, and they sought restitution for lost value of the crops along with ownership of the lands.

Legal Claims and Defenses

The plaintiffs sought a judicial declaration affirming their exclusive ownership of the disputed lands, restitution of the properties, and compensation for damages amounting to P4,000. On the other hand, Alejo Belen denied the plaintiffs' allegations and claimed ownership through inheritance from his mother and father. He argued that he did not recognize the plaintiffs' right to the lands in question and moved for dismissal of the case.

Court Proceedings and Judgment

Following the trial on March 10, 1908, the lower court ruled in favor of Alejo Belen, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim. The plaintiffs' counsel contested this decision, arguing that it contradicted the weight of evidence presented. However, the court maintained that the plaintiffs had the burden of proof to establish not just ownership but also the identity of the lands claimed.

Legal Principles Applied

Under established jurisprudence, a plaintiff must substantiate not only ownership but also the specific identity of the property in question. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate prior possession or a more valid claim than that of the defendant. Conversely, Alejo Belen successfully proved years of possession under a claim of ownership. The court referenced provisions from the Civil Code,

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.