G.R. No. L-5647 - Fortuna vs. Corrales

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5647)

Plaintiffs’ Allegations and Requested Relief

The plaintiffs alleged that a writing dated June 3, 1908 reflected their ownership and that they were in quiet and peaceable possession of the land parcels, which they said they inherited from their deceased father, Valentin Fortuna. They further alleged that the defendants, on or about the beginning of 1908, seized the plaintiffs’ share in crop distributions made with the plaintiffs’ tenants on shares. As described in the complaint, the seized produce consisted of sixty (60) bundles of palay valued at P20, nine (9) piculs of corn in the ear valued at P24.30, and two (2) cartloads of sweet potatoes valued at P5, which they totaled at P49.30.

The complaint also alleged that the defendants prohibited the tenants from giving any account or share in the crops to the plaintiffs in the future. It further asserted that the tenants were warned that if they failed to obey, they would cease being tenants and the lands would be taken away. The plaintiffs claimed that these acts deprived them of their right to the lands and that such deprivation continued, causing damages of P300. They therefore prayed that the defendants be ordered to deliver the fruits illegally collected, or their cash equivalent of P49.30, that they be ordered to cease disturbing the plaintiffs’ peaceable possession, that they be sentenced forever to “hold their peace,” and that they be made liable for indemnity for P300 plus costs.

In the complaint, the parcels were listed and designated under letters A through Z as part of the pleading, with the detailed description appended as an integral document.

Defendants’ Answer, Amended Defense, and Theory of Ownership

The defendants, Aurea Corrales and Lazaro Alapriz, admitted paragraph 1 of the complaint and denied the remaining factual allegations, including those relating to ownership, possession, the seizure of fruits, and the alleged prohibition imposed on tenants. They asserted a counter-theory of ownership: that the lands belonged to Aurea Corrales as the transferee of the rights of her deceased aunt, Patricia Fortuna, who allegedly had been in peaceable possession of the lands for an uninterrupted period of about twenty (20) years.

The defendants also claimed their own damages. They alleged that the filing of the complaint caused them losses estimated at P350, and they prayed for absolution from the complaint, with the plaintiffs ordered to pay P350 as indemnity for losses and damages, plus costs.

With the court’s permission, the defendants amended their answer. In the amended paragraph, the defendants clarified the scope of their claim by identifying the lands they said they possessed, stated that Aurea Corrales, assisted by her husband, possessed all the lands in question except those designated by letters O, P, and T (which she did not know) and except that designated by N, described as virtually the same as that specified under letter J. They maintained that their right derived from Patricia Fortuna, deceased, whom they described as having been in quiet and peaceable possession for eighteen years up to her death in 1908. They further alleged that Patricia was successor in interest under a will of Petrona Fortuna, who, prior to her death, had provided that certain lands should pass to her sister Patricia for care, with corresponding powers and duties.

Accordingly, the defendants’ defensive position rested on a gift or transfer through Patricia Fortuna to Aurea Corrales, coupled with the assertion that the defendants had long possession in their favor.

Trial and the Disposition in the Court a quo

After joinder of issue, oral evidence was presented by both parties. Documentary evidence was likewise introduced and attached to the record, subject to objections reflected in the bill of exceptions. Weighing the evidence, the trial court rendered judgment on May 25, 1909, absolving the defendants. The trial court did not include special findings as to costs.

The plaintiffs promptly sought relief through a written motion for a new trial, alleging that the judgment was contrary to the weight of the evidence and contrary to the law. The trial court overruled the motion, and the plaintiffs took exception. The bill of exceptions was certified and forwarded for appellate review.

The Core Issue as Framed on Appeal: Fruits, Possession, and the Proper Character of the Action

On appeal, the plaintiffs reiterated their demand that the spouses Aurea Corrales and Lazaro Alapriz deliver the fruits of the twenty-six (26) parcels or pay their value of P49.30, to stop disturbing their claimed quiet and peaceable possession, to permanently “hold their peace,” and to pay P300 for losses and damages plus costs. The defendants opposed the petition and urged that they be absolved because Aurea Corrales was the owner of the lands and that the plaintiffs should instead pay P350 as damages and costs.

The Court treated the matter as turning on proof of possession and ownership, and on whether the action as pleaded and pursued matched the relief sought. The Court noted that the evidence showed the defendants spouses were in peaceable possession of the lands claimed, except those designated by letters J, O, P, and T, whereas the plaintiffs did not possess or enjoy the lands. The Court also noted that the plaintiffs had in their favor a composition title issued by the director general de administración civil of the previous sovereignty dated February 8, 1893.

The Court then addressed the deeper ownership problem. It characterized the lands as part of a pro indiviso property left at the death of Petrona Fortuna. Although Petrona executed a testament in July, 1889, she did not name heirs in the testament, nor did she dispose of the greater part of her property. She willed some portions, including fruits, and she designated her sister Patricia for administration; she also involved her nephew Melecio among the relatives mentioned in the description. The Court thus reasoned that, as to the major portion of her property, Petrona died intestate, so that the nearest relatives under the laws in force on the date of her death were entitled to inherit the unbequeathed portion.

The Court’s Treatment of Succession and Transfer of Possession

Although the litigation did not, at least in purpose, aim at partition, the Court viewed the controversy as determining possession and ownership as derived from the succession of Petrona Fortuna, with the immediate present possessor being the defendant Aurea Corrales, who allegedly received the property as a gift from Patricia Fortuna, a mere administratrix and not an heir.

The plaintiffs Lorenzo and Melecio were described as nephews of Petrona—sons of a brother of the deceased testatrix—and thus entitled to the intestate estate. However, the Court found that their claim was not anchored on this hereditary right. Instead, the plaintiffs asserted a right of absolute ownership allegedly enjoyed by their father Valentin Fortuna, and for this purpose they presented the composition title issued by the dirección general de administración civil pursuant to a composition with the State.

The Court found that, regardless of the comparative value of the composition title, the plaintiffs were not in possession at the time of suit and were not in possession at present. The Court stated that the defendant Aurea Corrales had substituted into possession as donee from Patricia Fortuna, and that the chain of possession was traced successively from Petrona to Patricia and finally to Aurea. The Court ruled that the record showed full proof that neither Valentin Fortuna during his lifetime, nor afterwards his sons (the plaintiffs), ever possessed the lands in dispute, because the possession remained in the hands of Petrona, then Patricia, and finally Aurea.

The Court recounted specific dates and acts affecting possession. It noted that when Valentin Fortuna died on October 25, 1906, Patricia Fortuna was still living. The Court held that Patricia succeeded Petrona in possession and that Patricia made a gift to Aurea Corrales pursuant to a notarial instrument executed by the donor on February 19, 1908, before the letter’s removal to the Island of Culion, where she later died of leprosy. It further stated that Aurea then succeeded to the possession and enjoyment of the lands as owner, based on tenant testimony, including testimony that some tenants had contracted with Patricia as owner about ten years earlier, and that Patricia made arrangements with the donee Aquea to handle affairs after her departure.

The Court’s Assessment of the Complaint’s Character and the Plaintiffs’ Theory

The Court held that the possession of land was an indispensable condition for obtaining a title by composition with the State during the previous sovereignty. Without passing on the legal value and juridical efficacy of the February 8, 1893 composition title, the Court still held that the character of the action brought by the plaintiffs did not clearly appear from the complaint. It observed that, although the plaintiffs alleged ownership and possession, the record showed they were not in possession. The Court further found that the plaintiffs did not bring an action for the recovery of possession because they treated the lands as though they were already in their possession, contrary to the facts found. Instead, the plaintiffs asked for delivery of fruits allegedly illegally collected, for an order to abstain from disturbing possession, and for indemnity for losses and damages.

The Court also noted that the prayer did not permit deduction that the plaintiffs intended to institute a plenary action for possession. The Court stressed that the complaint’s categorical allegation of present possession was untrue, and that the relief sought was therefore not suited to the situation established by evidence. The Court concluded that because the defendant, as proprietor or possessor with title, was the one holding the

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-5647)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Lorenzo Fortuna and Melecio Dionisio Fortuna sued Aurea Corrales and her husband Lazaro Alapriz, asserting ownership and peaceable possession over twenty-six parcels of rural land.
The defendants admitted paragraph 1 of the complaint and denied the other material allegations, and they asserted ownership through a transfer from Patricia Fortuna.
The defendants amended their answer with respect to which parcels they possessed and reiterated their ownership theory based on Patricia Fortuna’s alleged prior quiet and peaceable possession.
The case proceeded to trial with oral evidence and documentary exhibits, with objections reflected in a bill of exceptions.
The trial court rendered judgment on May 25, 1909 absolving the defendants, and it made no special finding as to costs.
The plaintiffs filed a written motion for a new trial, asserting that the judgment was contrary to the weight of the evidence and the law.
The trial court overruled the motion, and the plaintiffs took exception; the bill of exceptions was certified and forwarded to the appellate court.
On appeal, the parties maintained opposing positions on possession and ownership, and on the proper delivery of fruits and the payment of damages.

Key Factual Allegations

The plaintiffs alleged that by a writing of June 3, 1908, they were owners of the twenty-six parcels and that the lands were inherited from their deceased father, Valentin Fortuna.
The complaint alleged that the defendants seized the plaintiffs’ share in crop distributions made with the lands’ tenants on shares.
The alleged seized fruits consisted of sixty bundles of palay, valued at P20, nine piculs of corn in the ear, valued at P24.30, and two cartloads of sweet potatoes, valued at P5, for a total of P49.30.
The plaintiffs claimed the defendants prohibited tenants from accounting for and sharing future crops with the plaintiffs, under threat that tenants would lose their tenancy and the lands.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ actions deprived them of rights in the lands and continued such deprivation up to the time of suit, causing damages of P300.
The complaint prayed for judgment ordering the defendants to deliver the fruits illegally collected, or their cash equivalent of P49.30, ordering them to cease disturbing the plaintiffs’ alleged peaceable possession, and awarding P300 as losses and damages, plus costs.
The plaintiffs attached a statement listing the parcels under letters A to Z, and the narrative treated the entire set as the subject of the controversy.
The defendants asserted that Aurea Corrales was the transferee of Patricia Fortuna’s rights, and that Patricia had possessed the lands in peace and enjoyment for about twenty years.
The defendants also alleged they suffered loss and damage estimated at P350 and prayed for absolution of the complaint and for payment of P350 by the plaintiffs.
After amendment, the defendants claimed Aurea possessed the lands as transferee of Patricia’s rights and obligations, and they alleged that the relevant lands remained proximately within a lineage of possession connected to Patricia and the testatrix Petrona Fortuna.

Estates and Competing Ownership Theories

The record showed that the litigation involved land derived from the succession of Petrona Fortuna, whose estate remained pro indiviso.
The court found that Petrona Fortuna executed a testament in July 1889 but did not name heirs for the major part of her property and did not dispose of the greater part, but only provided for the fruits as to portions.
The court held that Petrona Fortuna therefore died intestate as to the unbequeathed portion of her property, and that the nearest relatives were entitled to inherit under the laws in force at her death.
The court observed that while the apparent objective was to determine possession and ownership of the twenty-six parcels, the immediate dispute concerned who held ownership and who possessed and controlled the land and its fruits.
The plaintiffs were described as nephews of Petrona Fortuna, sons of her brother Valentin Fortuna, and they were held to be entitled to the intestate estate on that theory.
The court found, however, that the plaintiffs did not base their claim primarily on their intestate hereditary right; they instead relied on an asserted absolute ownership theory.
The plaintiffs presented a composition title issued by the direccion general de administración civil on February 8, 1893 as evidence of ownership.
The defendants opposed with a theory of ownership by gift, asserting that the lands were given to Aurea by Patricia Fortuna, whom the record treated as not an heir but a mere administratrix.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ composition title did not prevail against the defendants’ proven chain of possession and the substantive inheritance and donation findings made by the trial record.

Evidence on Possession

The trial record, as characterized by the court, established that the defendant spouses held peaceable possession of the lands except those designated by letters J, 0, P, and T.
The court found that the plaintiffs were not in possession or enjoyment of the lands at issue, notwithstanding their allegations of peaceable possession.
The court held that the plaintiffs and their predecessors never possessed the lands claimed, and that possession was successively held without interruption by Petrona, then by Patricia, and finally by Aurea.
The court relied on private documents to show how Petrona Fortuna acquired the lands and how the possession continued.
The court found that when Valentin F