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/ce00?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[BERNARDO FERRER v. DOROTEA](http://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/ce00?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:ce00}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. 5193, Feb 16, 1910 ]

BERNARDO FERRER v. DOROTEA +

DECISION

15 Phil. 219

[ G.R. No. 5193, February 16, 1910 ]

BERNARDO FERRER, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. DOROTEA AND ROSARIO DIAZ, OPPOSITORS AND APPELLANTS.

D E C I S I O N

MORELAND, J.:

The petitioner asks for the registration  of his title to 14 hectares 62 ares and 32 centares of land,  located in Burol, barrio of Valdefuerte, municipality of Cabanatuan, Province of Nueva Ecija.

The plan filed by the petitioner  describes and  includes not only the land just mentioned but also 12  hectares additional.

The petitioner's title to the 14 hectares  above mentioned is clearly established by the  deed of  the  same  introduced in evidence by him, in which it appears that he purchased said land of Benedicto Ibarra and Emeterio Ibarra on the 16th day of April,  1907; and by the testimony of  the said Benedicto and Emeterio  Ibarra, who testified that they and their ancestors had been continuously  in possession of said land, cultivating the same, for a period of more than thirty years prior to the execution and delivery of said deed. Dorotea Diaz opposed  the registration of the petitioner's title to the land in  question upon the ground that the land sought to be registered by the petitioner contained within its limits 16  hectares of land in the possession of  said oppositor.  Rosario  Diaz  also  opposed  the registration  of petitioner's  title to  said land upon the ground that  said land described  in the petition included within its limits  12 hectares of land in the possession  of said Rosario  Diaz. These two seem to found their opposition upon a possession of their respective parcels of land, although there is no real proof in the case of such possession, and also upon certain papers issued to them by the Insular Government, giving them authority to take possession of the lands mentioned as homesteads.   Such permission from the Insular Government in favor of Rosario Diaz was  obtained the 28th of December, 1907; that in favor of Doroteo Diaz bears date the 8th day of February, 1908.   Neither of those instruments contains a description of the land referred to therein and we have no means  of knowing from  the record where said lands are located or what their limits or  boundaries may  be.  The right of the  said  oppositors in the lands claimed in their  opposition rests  solely  upon the permits issued to them respectively  by the  Insular Government. There is no proof in the case of their possession of the lands and no  evidence as to their location, situation,  boundaries, or limits. There is no proof whatever upon which we may sustain the opposition.

The attorney for the oppositors makes some  claim that the right to the possession of the  land in question has been once  adjudicated by the Court of First Instance of the Province of Nueva Ecija in an action brought  to test the right  to such possession, entitled "Bernardo Ferrer vs. Venancio Diaz and others," in which the complaint of Ferrer was dismissed by the judge.  An examination of the order made by the court in that action  discloses that said action was dismissed without a trial  upon the merits and expressly without prejudice to the bringing of another action for the determination of the rights of the parties to the land in question.

After a careful examination of the record and the proofs we are unable to see any reason why the judgment of the court  below,  ordering the registration of the  petitioner's title to the land described in the  petition, namely, 14 hectares 62 ares and 32 centares, should not be sustained.

The judgment of the court below is hereby affirmed, with costs against the appellants.  So ordered.

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

tags