CITY OF MANILA v DEL ROSARIO
GR No. 1284 / NOV 10 1905 / MAPA, J. / EVIDENCE Admission by privies / LTLimbaring ISSUES & RATIO.
NATURE Appeal from CFI decision
PETITIONERS The City of Manila
RESPONDENTS Jacinto del Rosario
SUMMARY. The city of Manila filed an action to recover possession of a lot. Part of the
evidence they presented is a letter petition by Lorenzo del Rosario, the previous owner of the
lot (before it was sold to defendant Jacinto), offering to purchase the property from the city.
DOCTRINE. The evidence is inadmissible. The letter was executed only after he had already
transferred the land to Jacinto. Hence, it is no longer binding on Jacinto.
Where one derives title to real property from another, 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.
NOTE: Please read the SUMMARY & DOCTRINE first. Yun lang kasi yung relevant. Lolz.
FACTS.
The City of Manila filed an action to recover possession of 2 lots (located in calles Clavel
and Barcelona) in the City of Tondo which are occupied by Jacinto del Rosario since Feb
23, 1893.
At the hearing the City of Manila introduced documentary and oral evidence.
ORAL EVIDENCE
o John Wilson testified that he did not know of his own knowledge if the land belonged
to the city
o Eduardo Timoteo testified that Calles Clavel and Barcelona was formerly a part of
plaza divisoria which belonged to the Central Government (not the city) and that he did
not know to whom it belongs.
o Juan Villegas testified that the land in question was formerly included in the Gran
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
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
presented by the City of Manila.
1. Petition presented by Lorenzo del Rosario to the Mayor of Manila on Sept 26, 1891\
2. Letter written by Lorezo del Rosario to the Municipal Board of Manila on Oct 9
1901.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE(apart from the 2 mentioned above)
o Map (this was not however presented at the SC and only in the CFI.)
o 2 public instruments which show that Jacinto del Rosario was in possession of the land
under a good title and with the status of an owner.
Lorenzo del Rosario admitted the authenticity of both documents which contain an offer to
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
had been subsequently informed by the city officials that the land does not belong to Manila
but to Cipria Roco. He also said that he signed the second document because the President
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.
1. WON the City of Manila is entitled to the ownership and possession of the land NO
Evidence introduced does not prove Manilas claim of title to the land in question. Neither
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
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.
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
the presumption, under article 448 of the Civil Code, is that his title is good unless the
contrary is shown.
COURT COMMENTS ON ALL THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED: (Written below is whats
relevant to our topic i.e. documentary evidence concerning the letter petition containing offer
to purchase)
An offer of compromise is not admissible in evidence.
Lorenzo del Rosario signed the first document before he acquired ownership of the land.
The second document was signed after he had transferred the land to Jacinto del Rosario.
o Hence, whatever statements Lorenzo del Rosario might have made in the documents
mentioned, they are not binding upon the defendant, because, under section 278 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, "where one derives title to real property from another,
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."
DECISION.
Decision is REVERSED.
NOTES.
COURT COMMENTS ON OTHER EVIDENCE
Wilsons testimony did not know of his own knowledge
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
a part of either. According to the complaint, they are building lots.
Villegas testimony merely hearsay, they only consisted of what he had learned from some of
the oldest residents in the City. His testimony was presented for the purpose of proving that
the city was generally considered the owner of the land drawing from this fact the presumption
of actual ownership under the Civil Code Procedure. However, such testimony does not
constitute common reputation
Sotera Rocos testimony hearsay. Assuming admissible it still cant be inferred from her
testimony that Manila is the real owner of the land.