G.R. No. 121027 July 31, 1997 the name of Martin Guerrero.

On January 2,
1988, Martin Guerrero sold the lot to herein
CORAZON DEZOLLER TISON and RENE R. private respondent Teodora Domingo and
DEZOLLER, petitioners, thereafter, Transfer Certificate of Title No.
vs. 374012 was issued in the latter's name.
COURT OF APPEALS and TEODORA
DOMINGO, respondents. Martin Guerrero died on October 25, 1988.
Subsequently, herein petitioners filed an
action for reconveyance on November 2,
1988, claiming that they are entitled to inherit
REGALADO, J.: one-half of the property in question by right of
representation.
The present appeal by certiorari seeks the
reversal of the judgment rendered by At the pre-trial conference, the following issues
respondent Court of Appeals on June 30, were presented by both parties for resolution:
19951 which affirmed the Order of December
3, 1992 issued by the Regional Trial Court of (1) whether or not the plaintiffs
Quezon City, Branch 98, granting herein (herein petitioners) are the
private respondent's Demurrer to Plaintiff's nephew and niece of the late
Evidence filed in Civil Case No. Q-88-1054 Teodora Dezoller;
pending therein.
(2) whether or not the plaintiffs
The present appellate review involves an are entitled to inherit by right of
action for reconveyance filed by herein representation from the estate of
petitioners against herein private respondent the late Teodora Dezoller;
before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 98, docketed as the aforesaid (3) whether or not defendant
Civil Case No. Q-88-1054, over a parcel of (herein private respondent) must
land with a house and apartment thereon reconvey the reserved
located at San Francisco del Monte, Quezon participation of the plaintiffs to
City and which was originally owned by the the estate of the late Teodora
spouses Martin Guerrero and Teodora Dezoller under Section 4, Rule
Dezoller Guerrero. It appears that petitioners 74 of the Rules of Court which
Corazon Tison and Rene Dezoller are the was duly annotated on the title of
niece and nephew, respectively, of the the defendant;
deceased Teodora Dezoller Guerrero who is
the sister of petitioner's father, Hermogenes (4) whether or not the plaintiffs
Dezoller. Teodora Dezoller Guerrero died on are entitled to damages, moral
March 5, 1983 without any ascendant or and exemplary, plus attorney's
descendant, and was survived only by her fees for the willful and malicious
husband, Martin Guerrero, and herein refusal of defendant to reconvey
petitioners. Petitioners' father, Hermogenes, the participation of plaintiffs in
died on October 3, 1973, hence they seek to the estate of Teodora Dezoller,
inherit from Teodora Dezoller Guerrero by despite demands and knowing
right of representation. fully well that plaintiffs are the
niece and nephew of said
The records reveal that upon the death of deceased; and
Teodora Dezoller Guerrero, her surviving
spouse, Martin, executed on September 15, (5) whether or not the subject
1986 an Affidavit of Extrajudicial property now in litigation can be
Settlement2 adjudicating unto himself, considered as conjugal property
allegedly as sole heir, the land in dispute which of the spouses Martin Guerrero
is covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. and Teodora Dezoller
66886, as a consequence of which Transfer 3
Guerrero.
Certificate of Title No. 358074 was issued in
During the hearing, petitioner Corazon picture, and joint affidavits are all inadmissible
Dezoller Tison was presented as the lone and insufficient to prove and establish filiation.
witness, with the following documentary Hence, this appeal.
evidence offered to prove petitioners' filiation
to their father and their aunt, to wit: a family We find for petitioners.
picture; baptismal certificates of Teodora and
Hermogenes Dezoller; certificates of The bone of contention in private respondent's
destroyed records of birth of Teodora Dezoller demurrer to evidence is whether or not herein
and Hermogenes Dezoller; death certificates petitioners failed to meet the quantum of proof
of Hermogenes Dezoller and Teodora required by Article 172 of the Family Code to
Dezoller Guerrero; certification of destroyed establish legitimacy and filiation. There are two
records of live birth of Corazon and Rene points for consideration before us: first is the
Dezoller; joint affidavits of Pablo Verzosa and issue on petitioner's legitimacy, and second is
Meliton Sitjar attesting to the parents, date and the question regarding their filiation with
place of birth of Corazon and Rene Dezoller; Teodora Dezoller Guerrero.
joint affidavit of Juliana Cariaga and Manuela
Cariaga attesting to the fact of marriage I. It is not debatable that the documentary
between Martin Guerrero and Teodora evidence adduced by petitioners, taken
Dezoller; and the marriage certificate of Martin separately and independently of each other,
and Teodora Guerrero.4 Petitioners thereafter are not per se sufficient proof of legitimacy nor
rested their case and submitted a written offer even of pedigree. It is important to note,
of these exhibits to which a Comment5 was however, that the rulings of both lower courts
filed by herein private respondent. in the case are basically premised on the
erroneous assumption that, in the first place,
Subsequently, private respondent filed a the issue of legitimacy may be validly
Demurrer to Plaintiff's Evidence on the ground controverted in an action for reconveyance,
that petitioners failed to prove their legitimate and, in the second place, that herein
filiation with the deceased Teodora Guerrero petitioners have the onus probandi to prove
in accordance with Article 172 of the Family their legitimacy and, corollarily, their filiation.
Code. It is further averred that the testimony of We disagree on both counts.
petitioner Corazon Dezoller Tison regarding
her relationship with her alleged father and It seems that both the court a quo and
aunt is self-serving, uncorroborated and respondent appellate court have regrettably
incompetent, and that it falls short of the overlooked the universally recognized
quantum of proof required under Article 172 of presumption on legitimacy. There is no
the Family Code to establish filiation. Also, the presumption of the law more firmly established
certification issued by the Office of the Local and founded on sounder morality and more
Civil Registrar of Himamaylan, Negros convincing reason than the presumption that
Occidental is merely proof of the alleged children born in wedlock are legitimate.8 And
destruction of the records referred to therein, well settled is the rule that the issue of
and the joint affidavit executed by Pablo legitimacy cannot be attacked collaterally.
Verzosa and Meliton Sitjar certifying to the
date, place of birth and parentage of herein The rationale for these rules has been
petitioners is inadmissible for being hearsay explained in this wise:
since the affiants were never presented for
cross-examination.6 The presumption of legitimacy in
the Family Code . . . actually
On December 3, 1992, the trial court issued an fixes a civil status for the child
order granting the demurrer to evidence and born in wedlock, and that civil
dismissing the complaint for reconveyance.7 status cannot be attacked
collaterally. The legitimacy of the
In upholding the dismissal, respondent Court child can be impugned only in a
of Appeals declared that the documentary direct action brought for that
evidence presented by herein petitioners, purpose, by the proper parties,
such as the baptismal certificates, family
and within the period limited by confronted with the scandal and
law. ridicule which the infidelity of his
wife produces; and he should
The legitimacy of the child decide whether to conceal that
cannot be contested by way of infidelity or expose it, in view of
defense or as a collateral issue the moral and economic interest
in another action for a different involved. It is only in exceptional
purpose. The necessity of an cases that his heir are allowed to
independent action directly contest such legitimacy. Outside
impugning the legitimacy is more of these cases, none — even his
clearly expressed in the Mexican heirs — can impugn legitimacy;
Code (Article 335) which that would amount to an insult to
provides: "The contest of the his memory.9
legitimacy of a child by the
husband or his heirs must be The issue, therefore, as to whether petitioners
made by proper complaint are the legitimate children of Hermogenes
before the competent court; any Dezoller cannot be properly controverted in
contest made in any other way is the present action for reconveyance. This is
void." This principle applies aside, of course, from the further consideration
under our Family Code. Articles that private respondent is not the proper party
170 and 171 of the code confirm to impugn the legitimacy of herein petitioners.
this view, because they refer to The presumption consequently continues to
"the action to impugn the operate in favor of petitioners unless and until
legitimacy." This action can be it is rebutted.
brought only by the husband or
his heirs and within the periods Even assuming that the issue is allowed to be
fixed in the present articles. resolved in this case, the burden of proof rests
not on herein petitioners who have the benefit
Upon the expiration of the of the presumption in their favor, but on private
periods provided in Article 170, respondent who is disputing the same. This
the action to impugn the fact alone should have been sufficient cause
legitimacy of a child can no for the trial court to exercise appropriate
longer be brought. The status caution before acting, as it did, on the
conferred by the presumption, demurrer to evidence. It would have delimited
therefore, becomes fixed, and the issues for resolution, as well as the time
can no longer be questioned. and effort necessitated thereby.
The obvious intention of the law
is to prevent the status of a child Ordinarily, when a fact is presumed, it implies
born in wedlock from being in a that the party in whose favor the presumption
state of uncertainty for a long exists does not have to introduce evidence to
time. It also aims to force early establish that fact, and in any litigation where
action to settle any doubt as to that fact is put in issue, the party denying it
the paternity of such child, so must bear the burden of proof to overthrow the
that the evidence material to the presumption. 10 The presumption of legitimacy
matter, which must necessarily is so strong that it is clear that its effect is to
be facts occurring during the shift the burden of persuasion to the party
period of the conception of the claiming illegitimacy. 11 And in order to destroy
child, may still be easily the presumption, the party against whom it
available. operates must adduce substantial and
credible evidence to the contrary.12
xxx xxx xxx
Where there is an entire lack of competent
Only the husband can contest evidence to the contrary, 13 and unless or until
the legitimacy of a child born to it is rebutted, it has been held that a
his wife. He is the one directly presumption may stand in lieu of evidence and
support a finding or decision. 14 Perforce, a litem motam, that is, not only before the
presumption must be followed if it is commencement of the suit involving the
uncontroverted. This is based on the theory subject matter of the declaration, but before
that a presumption is prima facie proof of the any controversy has arisen thereon.
fact presumed, and unless the fact thus
established prima facie by the legal There is no dispute with respect to the first,
presumption of its truth is disproved, it must second and fourth elements. What remains for
stand as proved. 15 analysis is the third element, that is, whether
or not the other documents offered in evidence
Indubitably, when private respondent opted sufficiently corroborated the declaration made
not to present countervailing evidence to by Teodora Dezoller Guerrero in her lifetime
overcome the presumption, by merely filing a regarding the pedigree of petitioner Corazon
demurrer to evidence instead, she in effect Dezoller Tison or, if at all, it is necessary to
impliedly admitted the truth of such fact. present evidence other than such declaration.
Indeed, she overlooked or disregarded the
evidential rule that presumptions like judicial American jurisdiction has it that a distinction
notice and admissions, relieve the proponent must be made as to when the relationship of
from presenting evidence on the facts he the declarant may be proved by the very
alleged and such facts are thereby considered declaration itself, or by other declarations of
as duly proved. said declarant, and when it must be supported
by evidence aliunde. The rule is stated thus:
II. The weight and sufficiency of the evidence
regarding petitioner's relationship with One situation to be noted is that
Teodora Dezoller Guerrero, whose estate is where one seeks to set up a
the subject of the present controversy, claim through, but not from, the
requires a more intensive and extensive declarant and to establish the
examination. admissibility of a declaration
regarding claimant's pedigree,
Petitioners' evidence, as earlier explained, he may not do by declarant's
consists mainly of the testimony of Corazon own statements as to declarant's
Dezoller Tison, the baptismal, death and relationship to the particular
marriage certificates, the various certifications family. The reason is that
from the civil registrar, a family picture, and declarant's declaration of his
several joint affidavits executed by third own relationship is of a self-
persons all of which she identified and serving nature. Accordingly
explained in the course and as part of her there must be precedent proof
testimony. from other sources that
declarant is what he claimed to
The primary proof to be considered in be, namely, a member of the
ascertaining the relationship between the particular family; otherwise the
parties concerned is the testimony of Corazon requirement to admissibility that
Dezoller Tison to the effect that Teodora declarant's relationship to the
Dezoller Guerrero in her lifetime, or sometime common family must appear is
in 1946, categorically declared that the former not met. But when the party
is Teodora's niece. 16 Such a statement is claiming seeks to establish
considered a declaration about pedigree relationship in order to claim
which is admissible, as an exception to the directly from the declarant or the
hearsay rule, under Section 39, Rule 130 of declarant's estate, the situation
the Rules of Court, subject to the following and the policy of the law
conditions: (1) that the declarant is dead or applicable are quite different. In
unable to testify; (2) that the declarant be such case the declaration of the
related to the person whose pedigree is the decedent, whose estate is in
subject of inquiry; (3) that such relationship be controversy, that he was related
shown by evidence other than the declaration; to the one who claims his estate,
and (4) that the declaration was made ante is admissible without other proof
 of the fact of relationship. While further proof thereof, that petitioners are the
the nature of the declaration is niece and nephew of Teodora Dezoller
then disserving, that is not the Guerrero. As held in one case, 21 where the
real ground for its admission. subject of the declaration is the declarant's
Such declarations do not derive own relationship to another person, it seems
their evidential value from that absurb to require, as a foundation for the
consideration, although it is a admission of the declaration, proof of the very
useful, if not an artificial, aid in fact which the declaration is offered to
determining the class to which establish. The preliminary proof would render
the declarations belong. The the main evidence unnecessary.
distinction we have note is
sufficiently apparent; in the one Applying the general rule in the present case
case the declarations are self- would nonetheless produce the same result.
serving, in the other they are For while the documentary evidence
competent from reasons of submitted by petitioners do not strictly conform
necessity. 17 (Emphasis ours.) to the rules on their admissibility, we are
however of the considered opinion that the
The general rule, therefore, is that where the same may be admitted by reason of private
party claiming seeks recovery against a respondent's failure to interpose any timely
relative common to both claimant and objection thereto at the time they were being
declarant, but not from the declarant himself or offered in evidence. 22 It is elementary that an
the declarant's estate, the relationship of the objection shall
declarant to the common relative may not be be made at the time when an alleged
proved by the declaration itself. There must be inadmissible document is offered in
some independent proof of this fact. 18 As an evidence, 23 otherwise, the objection shall be
exception, the requirement that there be other treated as waived, 24 since the right to object
proof than the declarations of the declarant as is merely a privilege which the party may
to the relationship, does not apply where it is waive. 25
sought to reach the estate of the declarant
himself and not merely to establish a right As explained in Abrenica vs. Gonda, et
through his declarations to the property of al., 26 it has been repeatedly laid down as a
some other member of the family. 19 rule of evidence that a protest or objection
against the admission of any evidence must be
We are sufficiently convinced, and so hold, made at the proper time, otherwise it will be
that the present case is one instance where deemed to have been waived. The proper time
the general requirement on is when from the question addressed to the
evidence aliunde may be relaxed. Petitioners witness, or from the answer thereto, or from
are claiming a right to part of the estate of the the presentation of the proof, the
declarant herself. Conformably, the inadmissibility of the evidence is, or may be
declaration made by Teodora Dezoller inferred.
Guerrero that petitioner Corazon is her niece,
is admissible and constitutes sufficient proof of Thus, a failure to except to the evidence
such relationship, notwithstanding the fact that because it does not conform with the statute is
there was no other preliminary evidence a waiver if the provisions of the law. That
thereof, the reason being such declaration is objection to a question put to a witness must
rendered competent by virtue of the necessity be made at the time the question is asked. An
of receiving such evidence to avoid a failure of objection to the admission of evidence on the
justice. 20 More importantly, there is in the ground of incompetency, taken after the
present case an absolute failure by all and testimony has been given, is too late. 27 Thus,
sundry to refute that declaration made by the for instance, failure to object to parol evidence
decedent. given on the stand, where the party is in a
position to object, is a waiver of any objections
From the foregoing disquisitions, it may thus thereto. 28
be safely concluded, on the sole basis of the
decedent's declaration and without need for
The situation is aggravated by the fact III. The following provisions of the Civil Code
that counsel for private respondent provide for the manner by which the estate of
unreservedly cross-examined petitioners, as the decedent shall be divided in this case, to
the lone witness, on the documentary wit:
evidence that were offered. At no time was the
issue of the supposed inadmissibility thereof, Art. 975. When children of one or
or the possible basis for objection thereto, ever more brothers or sisters of the
raised. Instead, private respondent's counsel deceased survive, they shall
elicited answers from the witness on the inherit from the latter by
circumstances and regularity of her obtention representation, if they survive
of said documents: The observations later with their uncles or aunts. But if
made by private respondent in her comment to they alone survive, they shall
petitioners' offer of exhibits, although the inherit in equal portions.
grounds therefor were already apparent at the
time these documents were being adduced in Art. 995. In the absence of
evidence during the testimony of Corazon legitimate descendants and
Dezoller Tison but which objections were not ascendants, and illegitimate
timely raised therein, may no longer serve to children and their descendants,
rectify the legal consequences which resulted whether legitimate or
therefrom. Hence, even assuming ex gratia illegitimate, the surviving spouse
argumenti that these documents are shall inherit the entire estate,
inadmissible for being hearsay, but on account without prejudice to the rights of
of herein private respondent's failure to object brothers and sisters, nephews
thereto, the same may be admitted and and nieces, should there be any,
considered as sufficient to prove the facts under Article 1001.
therein asserted. 29
Art. 1001. Should brothers and
Accordingly, the Certificate of Marriage sisters or their children survive
(Exhibit S) wherein it is indicated that the with the widow or widower, the
parents of Teodora Dezoller are Isabelo latter shall be entitled to one-half
Dezoller and Cecilia Calpo, as well as the of the inheritance and the
Certificates of Baptism of Teodora brothers and sisters or theirs
30
Dezoller (Exhibit H) and Hermogenes children to the other half.
Dezoller (Exhibit J) which both reflect the
names of their parents as Isabelo Dezoller and Upon the death of Teodora Dezoller Guerrero,
Cecilia Calpo, to show that Hermogenes one-half of the subject property was
Dezoller is the brother of Teodora Dezoller automatically reserved to the surviving
Guerrero; and the Death Certificate of spouse, Martin Guerrero, as his share in the
Hermogenes Dezoller (Exhibit K) the entries conjugal partnership. Applying the
wherein were made by petitioner Corazon aforequoted statutory provisions, the
Dezoller Tison as his daughter, together with remaining half shall be equally divided
the Joint Affidavits of Pablo Verzosa and between the widower and herein petitioners
Meliton Sitjar (Exhibits N and P), to prove that who are entitled to jointly inherit in their own
herein petitioners are the children of right. Hence, Martin Guerrero could only
Hermogenes Dezoller — these can be validly alienate his total undivided three-
deemed to have sufficiently established the fourths (3/4) share in the entire property to
relationship between the declarant and herein herein private respondent. Resultantly,
petitioners. This is in consonance with the rule petitioners and private respondent are
that a prima facie showing is sufficient and that deemed co-owners of the property covered by
only slight proof of the relationship is Transfer Certificate of Title No. 374012 in the
required. 31 Finally, it may not be amiss to proportion of an undivided one-fourth (1/4) and
consider as in the nature of circumstantial three-fourths (3/4) share thereof, respectively.
evidence the fact that both the declarant and
the claimants, who are the subject of the All told, on the basis of the foregoing
declaration, bear the surname Dezoller. 32 considerations, the demurrer to plaintiff's
evidence should have been, as it is hereby,
denied. Nonetheless, private respondent may
no longer be allowed to present evidence by DECISION
reason of the mandate under Section 1 of
revised Rule 3 of the Rules of Court which
provides that "if the motion is granted but on MAPA, J. :
appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he
shall be deemed to have waived the right to
present evidence." 33 This is an action to recover the possession of
the two lots describe in the complaint, located
WHEREFORE, the questioned judgment of in Calles Clavel and Barcelona, district of
respondent Court of Appeals is hereby Tondo, at present occupied by the defendant.
REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and herein
petitioners and private respondent are The court below entered judgment in favor of
declared co-owners of the subject property the plaintiff and against the defendant for
with an undivided one-fourth (1/4) and three- possession and damages in the sum of
fourths (3/4) share therein, respectively. $2,500, United States currency, and costs.

SO ORDERED. At the trial, after the plaintiff rested, the

defendant moved for the dismissal of the case
upon the ground that the plaintiff had failed to
[G.R. No. 1284. November 10, 1905. ] establish the allegations in the complaint. This
motion was overruled by the court, to which
THE CITY OF MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ruling the defendant duly excepted. The
JACINTO DEL ROSARIO, Defendant- question thus raised puts in issue the trial
Appellant. court’s finding that the plaintiff was entitled to
the ownership and possession of the land in
Francisco Rodriguez, for Appellant. question. We accordingly hold that this point is
impliedly involved in the third and fourth
Modesto Reyes, for Appellee. assignments of error.

SYLLABUS Plaintiff introduced both documentary and oral

evidence. The latter consisted of the testimony
1. ACTION; DISMISSAL; ERROR. — The of John R. Lorenzo del Rosario, and Modesto
defendant is entitled to have the case Reyes, the city attorney. The first witness
dismissed where the plaintiff fails to establish testified that he did not know of his own
the allegations in the complaint; and an order knowledge if the land in question belonged to
overruling such motion is erroneous. the city (p. 11 of the bill of exceptions). The
next witness testified that the land included in
2. REALTY; POSSESSION; EVIDENCE. — Calles Clavel and Barcelona was formerly part
Where one derives title to real estate from of Plaza Divisoria, which belonged to the
another, the declaration act, or omission of the Central Government (not the city), and that he
latter to the property is evidence against the did not know to whom it now belongs (pp. 12
former only when made while the latter holds and 13 of the bill of exceptions)). It must be
the title. (Sec. 278, Code of Civil Procedure.) borne in mind that this witness referred to the
land included in Calles Clavel and Barcelona,
3. ID.; ID.; ID.; REGISTRATION; and not to the lots described in the complaint.
PRESUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP. — A These lots abut upon the streets referred to,
possessory information recorded in the but do not form a part of either. According to
property register is prima facie evidence of the the complaint, they are building lots.
fact that the person who instituted the
proceedings holds the property as owner; and The third witness, Juan Villegas, testified that
the presumption, under article 448 of the Civil the land in question was formerly included in
Code, is that his title is good unless the the Gran Divisoria, and that all the land
contrary is shown. included in it belonged to the city. In this
particular his testimony is at variance with that Rosario in his testimony, admitted the
of the precediing witness, who testified that the authenticity of both documents which contain
land belonged to the Central Government. an offer to the municipality of Manila to
Villega’s testimony was merely hearsay. It purchase the land on Calle Clavel. Lorenzo del
consisted of what he had learned from some Rosario admitted also that he signed the first
of the oldest residents in that section of the document under the misapprehension that the
city. His testimony was introduced by the land belonged to the city, but that he had been
plaintiff apparently for the purpose of proving subsequently informed by some of the city
that the city was generally considered the officials that the land did not belong to the
owner of the land, drawing from this fact the municipality, but to Cipriano Roco y Vera. He
presumption of actual ownership under stated that he signed the second document
paragraph 11, section 334, of the Code of Civil because the President of the Municipal Board,
Procedure. Such testimony, however, does Señor Herrera, advised him to do so in order
not constitute the "common reputation" to avoid litigation with the city. His testimony in
referred to in the section mentioned. "common this respect was not contradicted. We
reputation," as used in that section, is accordingly hold that the provisions of section
equivalent to universal reputation. The 346 of the Code of Civil Procedure are
testimony of this witness is not sufficient to applicable to the case at bar in so far as they
establish the presumption referred to. declare that an offer of compromise is not
admissible in evidence.
Furthermore, this witness stated that the land
in Calle Azcarraga had been partitioned Again, Lorenzo del Rosario signed the first
between the municipality and the Central document before he acquired from Cipriano
Government, share and share alike, and that Roco y Vera the ownership of the land referred
the Central Government (not the city) retained to therein, the second document being signed
Calles Gabriel de Rivera and Barcelona, which after he had transferred the land to the
are precisely the streets on which the property defendant Jacinto del Rosario, who took
abuts (bill of exceptions, pp. 15 and 16). possession of the same and had it registered,
as the plaintiff admits (par. 2 of the complaint),
The fourth witness (Sotera Roco) testified on the 23d of February, 1893. If this is so,
merely that Lorenzo del Rosario had paid 100 whatever statements Lorenzo del Rosario
pesos to her brother Cipriano Roco for the might have made in the documents
purpose of instituting a possessory information mentioned, they are not binding upon the
as to the property abutting on Calle Clavel. It defendant, because, under section 278 of the
appears that Lorenzo del Rosario acquired the Code of Civil Procedure, "where one derives
land from Cipriano Roco and sold it to his title to real property from another, the
brother Jacinto del Rosario, the defendant in declaration, act, or omission of the latter, in
this case. Notwithstanding this, and assuming relation to the property, is evidence against the
that the hearsay testimony of Sotera Roco is former only when made while the latter holds
admissible, we do not see how it can be the title."cralaw virtua1aw library
inferred from her testimony that the plaintiff is
the real owner of the property. The plaintiff also introduced in evidence a map
of the city of Manila. This map is not before us.
The witness Modesto Reyes and Lorenzo del It is sufficient to say, in order to show that it
Rosario said nothing as to the ownership of the has no value as evidence, that the reliability of
land. They simply testified as to the the map was not proven at the trial. The only
authenticity of some of the documentary witness examined with regard to it was the city
evidence introduced by the plaintiff. attorney. He was unable to say who made it or
who caused it to be made, or when it was
Of these documents the most important of all made. He said only that he believed the map
is the petition presented by Lorenzo del had been drawn in the month of July, 1880, or
Rosario to the "mayor of the city of manila" on prior to May, 1893. Neither this nor his
the 26th of September, 1891, and the letter statement that the map was found among the
written by him on the 9th of October, 1901, to archives of the city of Manila is of itself
the Municipal Board of Manila. Lorenzo del sufficient to show that the map is authentic. No
one appears to certify as to its correctness. Let the case be remanded to the court of its
origin for action in accordance herewith. The
The map identified by the witness John R. plaintiff shall pay the costs of the Court of First
Wilson was introduced by the plaintiff for the Instance. No special order is made as to the
sole purpose of showing the location of the costs on appeal. After the expiration of twenty
land in question. It has, therefore, no value in days from the date hereof let judgment be
establishing the right of possession claimed by entered in conformity herewith. So ordered.
the plaintiff.
Torres, Johnson, Carson and Willard, JJ.,
On the other hand, the two public instruments concur.
executed on March 7, 1900, between the
defendant and Telesfora Apostol y Perea, also
introduced in evidence by the plaintiff, show
that the defendant was in possession of the
land under a good title and with the status of
owner of the land. In the first instrument if is
stated so many words that the defendant is the
owner in fee simple of the land, he having
repurchased it from Liberio de Aurteneche y
Menchacatorre, whose title had been recorded
in the property register.

From the foregoing it appears that the

evidence introduced by the plaintiff does not
prove its claim of title to the land in question.
Neither the testimony of the witnesses
presented by the plaintiff nor the documentary
evidence introduced show that the city of
Manila is the owner of the land, or that it has a
right to its possession as claimed in the
complaint. Some of the documents introduced,
as well as the two public instruments referred
to as having been executed in 1900, tended to
support the contentions of the defendant
rather than those of the plaintiff. Furthermore,
the plaintiff itself admits in the complaint that
the defendant’s possession of the land in Calle
Barcelona was recorded since March, 1901,
and his possession of that in Calle Clavel since
February, 1893. This shows that the defendant
had been in the adverse possession of the
land. According to article 448 of the Civil Code
he must be presumed to hold under a just title,
unless the contrary is shown.

In view of the foregoing, we hold that the

defendant had a perfect right to ask for the
dismissal of the case on the ground that the
plaintiff had failed to establish the allegations
in the complaint, and the court erred in
overruling his motion to dismiss.

The order of the trial court overruling the

motion of the defendant to dismiss and the
judgment appealed from are hereby reversed.