Title
City of Manila vs. Del Rosario
Case
G.R. No. 1284
Decision Date
Nov 10, 1905
City of Manila sued Jacinto del Bosario over two lots, claiming ownership. Supreme Court ruled for defendant, citing insufficient evidence and hearsay; plaintiff failed to prove ownership.
possession
two lots
ownership

Case Summary (G.R. No. 1284)

Factual Background

The City of Manila brought an action to recover possession of the two described lots, alleging ownership and right to possession. At trial, the plaintiff presented both documentary and testimonial evidence.

The testimonial evidence included the testimony of John R. Wilson, Eduardo Timoteo, Juan Villegas, Sotera Roco, Lorenzo del Rosario, and Modesto Reyes, together with testimony by the city attorney regarding certain offered documentary items. The Supreme Court treated the evidentiary record as the core basis for assessing whether the plaintiff proved the complaint’s allegations.

Trial Court Proceedings and the Motion to Dismiss

After the plaintiff rested its case, the defendant moved for dismissal on the specific ground that the plaintiff failed to establish the allegations in the complaint. The trial court overruled the motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the question raised by that ruling necessarily put in issue the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff was entitled to ownership and possession of the land in question.

The Parties’ Contentions on Ownership and Possession

The City of Manila relied on its documentary and testimonial presentations to support its claimed title and possession rights. It also invoked a statutory evidentiary presumption connected to reputation of ownership under paragraph 11, section 334, of the Code of Civil Procedure, attempting to transform community belief into proof of actual ownership.

The defendant, by contrast, argued that the plaintiff failed to establish ownership or the right to possession. The Supreme Court agreed that the record did not support the plaintiff’s claim, and it held that the defendant therefore had a right to dismissal upon the ground asserted in his motion.

Evidentiary Findings: Testimonial Proof Offered by the City

The Supreme Court scrutinized each witness’ contribution.

John R. Wilson testified that he did not know, from his own knowledge, whether the land belonged to the city. His testimony did not establish City ownership of the specific lots sued for.

Eduardo Timoteo testified that the land included in Calles Clavel and Barcelona was formerly part of Plaza Divisoria, which had belonged to the Central Government, and he did not know who had title to it afterward. The Court noted a critical limitation: Timoteo’s remarks referred to the areas named by the streets, not to the particular lots described in the complaint. The lots abutted those streets but did not form part of them, and the complaint characterized the lots as building lots.

Juan Villegas testified that the land in question had been included in the Gran Divisoria and that all land included in it belonged to the city. The Supreme Court held Villegas’ testimony to be hearsay, because it rested on what he had learned from older residents. Moreover, even as an attempt at reputation evidence, the Court held it insufficient. The Court reasoned that “common reputation” under section 334(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure was equivalent to universal reputation, which the hearsay testimony did not establish.

Villegas also stated that the land in Calle Azcarraga had been partitioned between the municipality and the Central Government, share and share alike. He further stated that the Central Government retained Calles Gabriel de Rivera and Barcelona, which were precisely the streets on which the property abutted. The Court treated these statements as undermining the City’s claim of ownership over the relevant area.

Sotera Roco testified that Lorenzo del Rosario paid 100 pesos to her brother Cipriano Roco for the purpose of instituting a possessory information regarding property abutting on Calle Clavel. The Supreme Court observed that, even assuming the hearsay testimony of Roco was admissible, it did not logically prove that the plaintiff was the real owner of the specific property.

The witnesses Modesto Reyes and Lorenzo del Rosario did not testify to ownership. They testified only as to the authenticity of certain documentary evidence offered by the City.

Documentary Evidence and the Effect of Compromise Offers

The City’s most important documentary evidence consisted of two writings executed in connection with Lorenzo del Rosario’s dealings with the municipality: a petition addressed to the “mayor of the city of Manila” dated September 26, 1891, and a letter dated October 9, 1901 addressed to the Municipal Board of Manila. Those documents contained an offer by Lorenzo del Rosario to purchase the land on Calle Clavel.

Lorenzo del Rosario admitted the authenticity of both documents. He also admitted that he signed the first under the misapprehension that the land belonged to the city. He testified that he later learned from city officials that the land did not belong to the municipality but to Cipriano Roco y Vera. He further stated that he signed the second because the President of the Municipal Board, Senor Herrera, advised him to sign it in order to avoid litigation with the city. The Supreme Court found his explanations uncontradicted.

From these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that section 346 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied, insofar as it declared that an offer of compromise was not admissible in evidence. The City could not use those compromise-related writings as proof of title.

The Court also applied the principle in section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure on declarations against a predecessor in title only when made while that predecessor held title. Since Lorenzo del Rosario signed the first document before acquiring the land from Cipriano Roco y Vera, and the second after he transferred the land to the defendant Jacinto del Rosario—who took possession and registered it on February 23, 1893—any statements in those documents were not binding against the defendant.

The Map and Its Lack of Evidentiary Value

The City introduced a map of Manila, but the map was not shown in the record before the Supreme Court. The Court held that the map had no probative value because its reliability was not proven at trial. The only witness examined about it, the city attorney, could not state who made it, who caused it to be made, or when it was made. He merely expressed a belief that it was drawn in July 1880 or prior to May 1893. The Court emphasized the absence of any certification as to correctness. The map was identified by John R. Wilson only to show the location of the land. The Supreme Court held that such purpose did not establish any right of possession claimed by the City.

Evidence Supporting the Defendant’s Ownership and Possession

Against the City’s proof, the Supreme Court considered two public instruments executed on March 7, 1900 between the defendant and Telesfora Apostol y Perea, also introduced by the City. Those documents indicated that the defendant was in possession of the land under a good title and with the status of owner.

In particular, one instrument expressly stated that the defendant was the owner in fee simple of the land. It described that the defendant had repurchased the property from Liberio de Aurteneche y Menchacatorre, whose title had been recorded in the property register. The Court treated these instruments as affirmatively supporting the defendant’s ownership position rather than the City’s.

Adverse Possession Presumption and Admissions in the Complaint

The Supreme Court further noted that the City’s own complaint admitted the recording of the defendant’s possession: the defendant’s possession of the land in Calle Barcelona since March 1901, and his possession of the land in Calle Clavel since February 1893. The Court held that these admissions showed the defendant had been in adverse possession.

Under article 448 of the Civil Code, the defendant was presumed to hold under a just title unless the contrary was shown. The Court found that the City’s evidence did not show the contrary.

Legal Basis and Reasoning for Reversal

The Su

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms