You are on page 1of 1


GR No. 1284 / NOV 10 1905 / MAPA, J. / EVIDENCE Admission by privies / LTLimbaring ISSUES & RATIO.
NATURE Appeal from CFI decision 1. WON the City of Manila is entitled to the ownership and possession of the land NO
PETITIONERS The City of Manila Evidence introduced does not prove Manilas claim of title to the land in question. Neither
RESPONDENTS Jacinto del Rosario the testimony of the witnesses 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. Some of the
SUMMARY. The city of Manila filed an action to recover possession of a lot. Part of the documents introduced, as well as the two public instruments referred to as having been
evidence they presented is a letter petition by Lorenzo del Rosario, the previous owner of the executed in 1900, tended to support the contentions of the defendant rather than those of the
lot (before it was sold to defendant Jacinto), offering to purchase the property from the city. plaintiff.
DOCTRINE. The evidence is inadmissible. The letter was executed only after he had already Furthermore, the plaintiff itself admits in the complaint that the defendant's possession of
transferred the land to Jacinto. Hence, it is no longer binding on Jacinto. the land in Calle Barcelona was recorded since March, 1901, and his possession of that in
Where one derives title to real property from another, the declaration, act, or omission of the Calle Clavel since February, 1893. This shows that the defendant had been in the adverse
latter, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former only when made while the possession of the land.
latter holds the title. o A possessory information recorded in the property register is prima facie evidence of
the fact that the person who instituted the proceedings holds the property as owner and
NOTE: Please read the SUMMARY & DOCTRINE first. Yun lang kasi yung relevant. Lolz. the presumption, under article 448 of the Civil Code, is that his title is good unless the
contrary is shown.
The City of Manila filed an action to recover possession of 2 lots (located in calles Clavel COURT COMMENTS ON ALL THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED: (Written below is whats
and Barcelona) in the City of Tondo which are occupied by Jacinto del Rosario since Feb
relevant to our topic i.e. documentary evidence concerning the letter petition containing offer
23, 1893.
to purchase)
At the hearing the City of Manila introduced documentary and oral evidence.
An offer of compromise is not admissible in evidence.
Lorenzo del Rosario signed the first document before he acquired ownership of the land.
o John Wilson testified that he did not know of his own knowledge if the land belonged
The second document was signed after he had transferred the land to Jacinto del Rosario.
to the city
o Hence, whatever statements Lorenzo del Rosario might have made in the documents
o Eduardo Timoteo testified that Calles Clavel and Barcelona was formerly a part of
mentioned, they are not binding upon the defendant, because, under section 278 of the
plaza divisoria which belonged to the Central Government (not the city) and that he did
Code of Civil Procedure, "where one derives title to real property from another,
not know to whom it belongs.
o Juan Villegas testified that the land in question was formerly included in the Gran the declaration, act, or omission of the latter, in relation to the property, is
evidence against the former only when made while the latter holds the title."
Divisoria and that all land included in it belonged to the city.
o Sotera Roco testified that a certain Lorenzo del Rosario paid 100 pesos to her brother
for the purpose of instituting a possessory information as to the property abutting on DECISION.
Decision is REVERSED.
Calle Clavel.
o Modesto Reyes and Lorenzo del Rosario said nothing as to the ownership of the land.
They simply testified as o the authenticity of some of the documentary evidence NOTES.
presented by the City of Manila.
1. Petition presented by Lorenzo del Rosario to the Mayor of Manila on Sept 26, 1891\ Wilsons testimony did not know of his own knowledge
2. Letter written by Lorezo del Rosario to the Municipal Board of Manila on Oct 9 Timoteos testimony - referred to the land included in Calles Clavel and Barcelona, and not to
the lots described in the complaint. These lots abut upon the streets referred to, but do not form
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE(apart from the 2 mentioned above)
a part of either. According to the complaint, they are building lots.
o Map (this was not however presented at the SC and only in the CFI.)
Villegas testimony merely hearsay, they only consisted of what he had learned from some of
o 2 public instruments which show that Jacinto del Rosario was in possession of the land
the oldest residents in the City. His testimony was presented for the purpose of proving that
under a good title and with the status of an owner.
the city was generally considered the owner of the land drawing from this fact the presumption
Lorenzo del Rosario admitted the authenticity of both documents which contain an offer to of actual ownership under the Civil Code Procedure. However, such testimony does not
the City of Manila to purchase the land on Calle Clavel. He also admitted that he signed
the first document under the misapprehension that the land belonged to the city, but that he constitute common reputation
had been subsequently informed by the city officials that the land does not belong to Manila Sotera Rocos testimony hearsay. Assuming admissible it still cant be inferred from her
but to Cipria Roco. He also said that he signed the second document because the President
testimony that Manila is the real owner of the land.
of the Municipal Board advised him to do so in order to avoid litigation.
o His testimony was not contradicted.
The court ruled in favour of the City of Manila and awarded $2,500 damages.