|
SECOND
DIVISION
THE CITY OF THE
MANILA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
G.R.
No.
1599
June
1,
1906
-versus-
LEONARDA
SALGADO,
Defendant-Appellee.
D E C I S I
O N
ARELLANO, C.J.:
On the 18th of July, 1902,
the City of Manila brought this action to recover a tract of land of
which
the defendant was then in possession, alleging that it was the owner of
the same, and further, to recover the sum of 15,000 dollars, Unites
States
currency, damages for the wrongful occupation of the land by the
defendant
and her father.
It is alleged in
paragraph
2 of the Complaint that the father of the defendant had been in
possession
of the land in question from the 28th of February 1889, when he
instituted
possessory information proceedings before the authorities of the
distinct
of Santa Cruz, where the land is situated, in accordance with the
practice
at the time. These proceedings were subsequently recorded in the office
of one of the clerks of court of the city of Manila.
It will be noted that
it is alleged in the Complaint that the defendant had been in the
adverse
possession of the land under claim of ownership for more than thirty
years.
The defendant has
confirmed
this allegation by documentary proof, which, considered even as a
foundation
supported as it is by parol evidence from which it appears that such
possession
had continued for not less than forty-five years, shows not only this
fact
but a right of possession now supported by a title of hereditary
succession,
he derivation and transmission of which have also been admitted in
Paragraph
3 of the Complaint.
The
City of Manila
has not proved that it has been in possession of the land claimed at
any
time whatever, nor has it proved that it has a better right to the
possession
of the land than the defendant, and much less has it proved that it has
any title to the property. The only proof offered by the plaintiff city
is evidence to the effect that it has opened streets trough that
vicinity
and a number of legal provisions enacted by the former Board of the
City
of the Manila in regard to taxation, which were properly rejected by
the
Court below as immaterial to the issue.
The judgment of
the
Court below whereby the action of the plaintiff was dismissed with the
costs is in conformity with the law, and is, therefore, hereby affirmed
in all respects, with the costs of this instance against the appellant,
and after the expiration of twenty days, let judgment be entered in
accordance
herewith and ten days thereafter the record be remanded to the court
below
for execution. So ordered.
Torres, Mapa, Johnson,
and Carson, JJ., concur. |
