Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1926 > December 1926 Decisions > G.R. No. 24003 December 31, 1926 - JULIAN SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. PEDRO SANTOS, ET AL.

048 Phil 567:



[G.R. No. 24003. December 31, 1926. ]

JULIAN SANTIAGO, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PEDRO SANTOS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Emiliano T. Tirona for Appellants.

Ambrosio Santos for Appellees.


1. ACTION TO RECOVER PROPERTY; EVIDENCE; REQUISITE FOR CONSIDERATION OF. — Although a portion of a document was introduced portion thereof, if he did not in turn present it as evidence nor ask the trial court to consider it as such (sec. 283 of Code of Civil Procedure; Matias v. Alvarez, 10 Phil., 398), and much less, if he objected to the introduction of the document and excepted to its admission.

2. ID.; ID.; IDENTITY OF REALTY IN QUESTION. — He who seeks to recover a land is under obligation to prove the identity thereof.



The controversy in this case is concerned with the recovery of the land described in paragraph 4 of the complaint, and which is a part of a property of greater area of the deceased Fabian Tiongson.

The plaintiff Julian Santiago is father of his coplaintiffs Gaspara and Santiago, and the three of them allege that they are the owners pro indiviso of said portion of land, the same having been partly inherited by the wife and mother, respectively, of said plaintiffs, who was a granddaughter of the original owner Fabian Tiongson, and partly purchased from other owners.

The defendant Pedro Santos who is in possession of the land in question (the defendant Teodorico Santos has no interest in, or right over, the land), asserts that he is the absolute owner of said realty, setting up prescription as special defense against the complaint, and a counter-claim which does not concern us in this appeal, the same having been overruled by the trial court and no appeal having been taken from said overruling.

The trial court absolved the defendants from the complaint.

The errors assigned to said judgment are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1. The finding that the plaintiffs have not proven who was the granddaughter of Fabian Tiongson, with whom the plaintiff Julian Santiago was married, nor what portion was allotted to her as heir of said Tiongson.

2. The finding that it was not shown by any proof how the plaintiff Julian Santiago acquired his right to the land in question, which was sold with a right of repurchase by said plaintiff Julian Santiago to one Hilarion Reyes.

3. The failure to adjudge the plaintiffs absolute owners of the land in question.

4. The failure to render judgment against the defendant Pedro Santos and in favor of the plaintiffs for the payment of the sum of P600 yearly from the year 1918, as the rents collected and received by said defendant for the land in question until delivery thereof.

5. The denial of the motion for new trial.

As to the first error, it really does not appear to have been proven who is the granddaughter of Fabian Tiongson, and above all, what portion of the land of said deceased was allotted to said granddaughter. Exhibit 8 cited by the appellants in their brief was presented as evidence only as to the 3,000 nipa plants which were destroyed, and not that part of it as to who was the alleged granddaughter of Fabian Tiongson, which part was not used by the plaintiff as evidence. In order that said part concerning the said granddaughter may be considered as evidence in this case, the plaintiffs should have presented it as such. (Sec. 283, Code of Civil Procedure; Matias v. Alvarez, 10 Phil., 398.) And not only did the plaintiffs not offer said Exhibit 8 as evidence, but objected to said document, as being immaterial and incompetent, and took exception to its admission.

At any rate, said Exhibit 8 does not show the portion which, is said, was allotted to the aforesaid granddaughter of Fabian Tiongson. Once she is identified, it matters not that her individual name is unknown. What mattered in this case was to specify the portion of the land of her grandfather which is alleged to have been allotted to her, 80 that it might be determined whether such portion was the parcel here in question or said parcel was a part thereof. This does not appear, nor are the portions alleged to have been bought by the plaintiff Julian Santiago specified.

The second error assigned chiefly raises a question of fact. The evidence of record does not warrant a different conclusion from that of the lower court with regard to said question.

As to the third error assigned, it is a consequence of the preceding ones. With respect to the land tax receipts constituting Exhibit C, said receipts do not contain a description of the land and are not otherwise identified with the land here in dispute.

The other errors assigned are deductions from the above.

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

Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

December-1926 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 23451 December 2, 1926 - JUAN SUMULONG v. JOSEFA MORAN

    048 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 26320 December 3, 1926 - S. W. O’BRIEN, ET AL. v. Hon. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 25604 December 6, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ELIGIO AMANTE, ET AL.

    049 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. 26170 December 6, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. TEODORO LUCHICO

    049 Phil 689

  • G.R. No. 23871 December 7, 1926 - MUNICIPALITY OF LEMERY v. ANDRES MENDOZA, ET AL.

    048 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 24995 December 8, 1926 - EUSEBIO MACASA, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF APOLONIO GARCIA

    049 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. 25235 December 9, 1926 - LIM JULIAN v. TIBURCIO LUTERO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 703

  • G.R. No. 23386 December 12, 1926 - MERCEDES GUSTILO, ET AL. v. HERMINIO MARAVILLA

    048 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 25963 December 14, 1926 - SUSANA GLARAGA v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE CO. OF CANADA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 737

  • G.R. No. 25976 December 16, 1926 - FRANCISCO J. GONZALES, ET AL. v. PAULINA FRANCISCO

    049 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. 24788 December 17, 1926 - FULGENCIO M. DEL CASTILLO v. RUFINO MADRILEÑA

    049 Phil 749

  • G.R. No. 25845 December 17, 1926 - PARIS MANILA PERFUME CO. v. PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO.

    049 Phil 753

  • G.R. No. 26202 December 17, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FILEMON CABIGAS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 759

  • G.R. No. 26337 December 17, 1926 - CELSO LEDESMA v. MUN. OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    049 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. 25940 December 18, 1926 - ALEJANDRA MEJICA v. PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, ET AL.

    049 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. 24047 December 17, 1926 - ASIA BANKING CORPORATION v. LACSON COMPANY, INC.

    048 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. 23483 December 18, 1926 - ANTONIO AMATA, ET AL. v. JUANA TABLIZO, ET AL.

    048 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 23810 December 18, 1926 - CATALINO VALDERRAMA v. NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CO., INC.

    048 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 25072 December 18, 1926 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY v. DOMINGO LEGARDA

    048 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. 25954 December 18, 1926 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JUAN GISBERT, ET AL.

    049 Phil 779

  • G.R. No. 25267 December 24, 1926 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. MARIO PAMINTUAN

    049 Phil 793

  • G.R. No. 25488 December 24, 1926 - MANILA RAILROAD CO. v. ASUNCION MITCHEL VDA. DE SY QUIA

    049 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. 25739 December 24, 1926 - MAXIMO VIOLA, ET AL. v. VICENTA TECSON, ET AL.

    049 Phil 808

  • G.R. No. 25846 December 24, 1926 - JUAN CAMAHORT v. JUAN POSADAS

    049 Phil 811

  • G.R. No. 25950 December 24, 1926 - E. AWAD v. FILMA MERCANTILE CO., INC.

    049 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. 26483 December 24, 1926 - SMITH, BELL & CO., ET AL. v. Hon. FRANCISCO SANTAMARIA, ET AL.

    049 Phil 820

  • G.R. No. 26615 December 24, 1926 - MANUEL RODRIGUEZ v. Hon. JULIO LLORENTE, ET AL.

    049 Phil 823

  • G.R. No. 24930 December 31, 1926 - TAN PHO, ET AL. v. AMPARO NABLE JOSE

    049 Phil 828

  • G.R. No. 25694 December 31, 1926 - LEOCADIA ANGELO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL.

    049 Phil 838

  • G.R. No. 25811 December 31, 1926 - BPI v. ULRICH FOERSTER

    049 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. 26062 December 31, 1926 - JOSE V. RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. J. R. REDFERN

    049 Phil 849

  • G.R. No. 26374 December 31, 1926 - NICANOR JACINTO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    049 Phil 853

  • G.R. No. 25853 December 31, 1926 - BACHRACH MOTOR CO. v. CIPRIANO E. UNSON

    050 Phil 981

  • G.R. No. 26118 December 31, 1926 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. MARIANO ESCUETA

    050 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. 23239 December 31, 1926 - FELIPE DIZON v. NICOLAS RIVERA, ET AL.

    048 Phil 996

  • G.R. No. 24003 December 31, 1926 - JULIAN SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. PEDRO SANTOS, ET AL.

    048 Phil 567


    048 Phil 536