Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c451?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[EUSEBIA BROCE ET AL. v. CATALINO BROCE](http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c451?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c451}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights
4 Phil. 611

[ G.R. No. 1801, July 26, 1905 ]

EUSEBIA BROCE ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. CATALINO BROCE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

WILLARD, J.:

Gregorio Broce died on the 16th day of August, 1889. The plaintiffs are his children, and the defendant is his brother. The only question in the case is, Are the plaintiffs the owners of the hacienda San Pedro, in the pueblo of Calatrava, in the Province of Occidental Negros, or is the defendant the owner?

The court below decided that the plaintiffs were the owners. The defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that this decision was not justified by the evidence, and in this court the only question raised by the different assignments of error is, Did the evidence in the court justify this finding of fact made by the trial judge? It is simply a question concerning the weight of evidence.

After an examination of the evidence we are satisfied that it clearly preponderates in favor of the plaintiffs, and we adopt the following quotation from the decision of the court below:

"Sin hacer merito detallado de cada una de las pruebas practicadas por la parte demandante entiende que la certificacion del registro de inscripcion de la misma (la hacienda) que obra unida a losautos y que aparece extendida a nombre y en favor de los demandantes constituye prueba convincente a juicio de esta Corte de la principal pretension de los demandantes, y este juicio se funda no solo en el caracter publico de dicho documento cuya antiguedad data desde el 1.° de Diciembre de 1890 o sea cuando habia ocurrido apenas un ano el fallecimiento de Don Gregorio Broce, sino tambien y principal men te porque la informacion posesoria a que se refiere la inscripcion en el Registro de la Propiedad de que se ha hecho merito en orden a la finca en cuestion fue promovida nada menos y precisamente por el mismo D. Catalino Broce hoy demandado. En ella Catalino Broce expone paladinamente que al ocurrir la muerte de su hermano D. Gregorio Broce, este dejo varios hijos de los que fue nombrado tutor y curador, llamados Maximina, Eusebia, Tranquilino, Emilio, Florentino, Dionisio, Juan y Margarita todos de apellido Broce y Apurado, a los cuales pertenece proindiviso la propiedad de un terreno de 300 cavanes en semilla de palay con los mismos linderos que se describen en la demanda, habiendo adquirido dicha finca su citado hermano por compra de varios duefios entre ellos de D. Carlos Apurado desde el ano 1880 en que aquel estuvo en quieta y pacifica posesion de la misma hasta que tuvo lugar su fallecimiento."

The defendant at the trial gave two or three reasons why he caused this possessory information to be filed in the names of the plaintiffs, but the evidence which he adduced in support of these reasons did not establish any one of them. There was, moreover, other evidence in the case tending to support the claim of the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. After the expiration of twenty days judgment will be entered in conformity herewith, and the cause will be returned to the lower court for execution. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J. Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Carson JJ., concur.


tags