Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 227 views

    City of Manila v. Jacinto Del Rosario PDF

    Uploaded by

    xxxaaxxx
    1) City of Manila sued Jacinto del Rosario to recover possession of 2 lots occupied by del Rosario. City of Manila introduced documentary and oral evidence to establish ownership of the lots. 2) Statements made by Lorenzo del Rosario, Jacinto's brother, in documents he signed before and after acquiring the lots from another party, are not binding on Jacinto as Lorenzo did not hold title when he made the statements. 3) Jacinto presented documents showing he had possessed the lots since 1893-1901 and is presumed to hold them under a just title unless the City proves otherwise. The court rules in favor of Jacinto, finding the City failed to establish its

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    City of Manila v. Jacinto Del Rosario PDF

    Uploaded by

    xxxaaxxx
    227 views4 pages
    1) City of Manila sued Jacinto del Rosario to recover possession of 2 lots occupied by del Rosario. City of Manila introduced documentary and oral evidence to establish ownership of the lots. 2) Statements made by Lorenzo del Rosario, Jacinto's brother, in documents he signed before and after acquiring the lots from another party, are not binding on Jacinto as Lorenzo did not hold title when he made the statements. 3) Jacinto presented documents showing he had possessed the lots since 1893-1901 and is presumed to hold them under a just title unless the City proves otherwise. The court rules in favor of Jacinto, finding the City failed to establish its

    Original Title

    City of Manila v. Jacinto del Rosario.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) City of Manila sued Jacinto del Rosario to recover possession of 2 lots occupied by del Rosario. City of Manila introduced documentary and oral evidence to establish ownership of the lots. 2) Statements made by Lorenzo del Rosario, Jacinto's brother, in documents he signed before and after acquiring the lots from another party, are not binding on Jacinto as Lorenzo did not hold title when he made the statements. 3) Jacinto presented documents showing he had possessed the lots since 1893-1901 and is presumed to hold them under a just title unless the City proves otherwise. The court rules in favor of Jacinto, finding the City failed to establish its

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    227 views4 pages

    City of Manila v. Jacinto Del Rosario PDF

    Uploaded by

    xxxaaxxx
    1) City of Manila sued Jacinto del Rosario to recover possession of 2 lots occupied by del Rosario. City of Manila introduced documentary and oral evidence to establish ownership of the lots. 2) Statements made by Lorenzo del Rosario, Jacinto's brother, in documents he signed before and after acquiring the lots from another party, are not binding on Jacinto as Lorenzo did not hold title when he made the statements. 3) Jacinto presented documents showing he had possessed the lots since 1893-1901 and is presumed to hold them under a just title unless the City proves otherwise. The court rules in favor of Jacinto, finding the City failed to establish its

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    CITY OF MANILA v. JACINTO DEL ROSARIO | G.R. No.

    1284 | November 10, 1905

    DOCTRINE: 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.

    FACTS:

    1. This is an action to recover the possession of 2 lots (building lots), located in Calles Clavel and
    Barcelona, district of Tondo, presently occupied by del Rosario

    2. Del Rosario moved for the dismissal of the case upon the ground that the City of Manila failed to
    establish the allegations in the complaint

    • CFI of Manila ruled in favor of City of Manila

    3. Del Rosario now puts in issue the trial court’s finding that City of Manila was entitled to the
    ownership and possession of the land in question

    ISSUE: WON Lorenzo del Rosario’s statements are binding upon Jacinto del Rosario

    RULING: NO
    (NOTE: Case is really about who owns the lots, whether it’s the City of Manila or Jacinto del Rosario. I
    included all the facts, but the most important part that is relevant to our class in Evidence is the
    documentary evidence presented by Lorenzo del Rosario.)

    City of Manila introduced both documentary and oral evidence to establish that it owns the 2 lots
    and not del Rosario
    A. Oral Evidence

    1. John Wilson — testified that he did not know of his own knowledge if the land in question
    belonged to the City

    2. Eduardo Timoteo — testified that the land included in Calles Clavel and Barcelona was
    formerly part of Plaza Divisoria, which belonged to the Central Government (not the city), and
    that he did not know to whom it now belongs

    • this witness referred to the land included in the Calles, and not to the lots in the complaint

    3. Juan Villegas — testified that the land in question was formerly included in the Gran
    Divisoria, and that all the land included in it belonged to the City

    • this testimony is in conflict with Timoteo (who said that the land belonged to the Central
    Government)

    • Villegas’ testimony is hearsay — he only knew of this fact from some of the oldest
    residents in that section of the City

    • City of Manila introduced Villegas’ testimony for the purpose of proving that the City was
    “generally” considered the owner of the land —> in order to establish presumption of
    actual ownership

    • Court: testimony not sufficient to establish such presumption

    - Sec. 334 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires common reputation that is equivalent
    to universal reputation

    - testimony from “some of the oldest residents” do not constitute common reputation

    4. Sotera Roco — testified that Lorenzo del Rosario had paid P100 to her brother Cipriano
    Roco for the purpose of instituting a possessory information as to the property abutting on
    Calle Clavel

    • it appears that Lorenzo del Rosario acquired the land from Cipriano Roco and sold it to his
    brother Jacinto del Rosario, the defendant in this case

    • hearsay testimony

    • Court: even if the hearsay testimony is admissible, we do not see how it can be inferred
    from her testimony that the City of Manila is the real owner of the property
    5. Modesto Reyes (City Attorney) and Lorenzo del Rosario (brother of defendant) — testified as
    to the authenticity of some of the documentary evidence introduced by City of Manila

    B. Documentary Evidence

    1. Petition presented by Lorenzo del Rosario to the City of Manila mayor (September 26, 1891)
    + letter written by him to the Municipal Board of Manila (October 9, 1901) —> contained an
    offer to the Municipality of Manila to purchase the land of Calle Clavel

    • Lorenzo admitted the authenticity of both documents

    - admitted that he signed the first document (petition to the city mayor) because he
    thought the land belonged to the city —> he had been informed by some of the city
    officials that the land did not belong to the municipality, but to Cipriano Roco y Vera

    - stated that he signed the second document (letter to the municipal board) because
    the President of the Municipal Board, Señor Herrera, advised him to do so in order
    to avoid litigation with the City

    • Court: provisions of section 346 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the
    case at bar in so far as they declare that an offer of compromise is not admissible in
    evidence

    - Lorenzo del Rosario signed the first document BEFORE he acquired from Cipriano
    Roco y Vera the ownership of the land, the second document being signed AFTER
    he had transferred the land to Jacinto del Rosario, who took possession of the same
    and had it registered, as City of Manila admits, on February 23, 1893
    - Therefore, whatever statements Lorenzo del Rosario might have made in the
    documents (petition + letter) mentioned, they are not binding upon Jacinto del
    Rosario, 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.”

    2. Map of the City of Manila

    • Court: no value since the reliability of the map was not proven during the trial
    3. 2 public instruments executed on March 7, 1900 between defendant Jacinto del Rosario and
    Telesfora Apostol y Perea

    • Court: such show that Jacinto was in possession of the land under good title and with
    the status of owner of the land

    City of Manila itself admits in the complaint that Jacinto’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 Del Rosario had been in the adverse possession of the land

    • Article 448 of the Civil Code states that 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.

    You might also like