1. LANDLORD AND TENANT; TENANTS’ ACTS BY PERMISSION OF LANDLORD; RIGHT TO POSSESSION. — The acts of a possessory nature performed by the lessee on the property leased, by permission of the lessor under the lease contract, will not avail him in an attempt to establish his right to possession. (Art. 1942, Civil Code.)

2. ID.; REGISTRATION OF LAND BY LANDLORD; OPPOSITION BY TENANT. — The person objecting to the inscription in the registry of certain land, after the signing of a lease contract for the use and enjoyment thereof by himself, can not in an action deny the right of the lessor seeking registration, nor impugn the lawfulness and existence of said contract by virtue of which he has been occupying the land in question, without repudiating his own acts. Inasmuch as he fails to prove his ownership of the property he can not lawfully impede the registration asked for.

On October 11 , 1906, the attorneys for Miguel Pascual filed with the Court of Land Registration an application for the registration, pursuant to the provisions of the Land Registration Act, o f a piece of land belonging exclusively to him. Said land consists of four parcels, was inscribed in the old registry, and is located in the barrio of San Roque, within the municipality of Navotas; it is bounded on the north by lands belonging to Producio Suarez, Brigida Tengco, Saturnina Bunda, Macario Angeles, and Damaso Oliveros; on the east by the Navotas River; on the south by property of Faustino Pascual, and on the west by the Manila Bay, as will be seen on the map accompanying said petition and submitted as Exhibit. A, That part of the land in question which is classed as city property has an area of 18,474 square meters and 55 square decimeters, while that part classed as rural property measures 35, 164 square meters and 75 square decimeters. A dwelling house and a storehouse of strong materials and corrugated iron roof, the property of the petitioner, are erected thereon. According to the application the said four parcels of land composing the property above mentioned, inscribed in the old registry as already said, and having the foregoing limits, were acquired by the applicant as heir of his mother Crisanta Gonzalez, as appears from Exhibit B which is a certificate issued by the register of deeds of this city. For the purposes of the payment of the land tax the four parcels in question were assessed jointly in the sum of P24, 520, as shown by Exhibit C. Said property is free from all encumbrances and, so far as petitioner is aware, no person claims any right or interest in said land except Alejandro Santos, Quiteria Florindo, Marcos Naval, Andrea Soriano, Pedro Pascual, Teodoro Pascual, Felipe Pascual, Angelo Pascual, Miguel Siano, Marcelo Joingco, Graciano Alcantara, Pantaleion Bautista, Laureana Gonzalez, Aniceto Santos, Quintin Naval, Esperanza Naval, Fausto Perez, Carlota Naval, Alejandro Senson, Damaso Oliveros and Macario Angeles, all residents of said barrio and pueblo. These persons claim a right or interest in the portion of the land occupied by each of them within the property above described, mention being made of the names of the tenants of the part of the land classed as city property as well of the lessees on shares of the part of the land classed as rural property.

At the hearing of this application, Marcelo Joingco, by his writing of March 12, 1907, appeared and entered a general and specific denial of all and every one of the facts alleged in the application, and by way of special defense he set forth: that there is pending before the Court of First Instance of Rizal civil case No. 210 brought by the same Miguel Pascual, Petitioner, against the respondent Marcelo Joingco and others, concerning the ownership of the land in question; that by another action, No. 99, before the same court and between the applicant and the objector as parties litigant, the issue in regard to the possession of this same land was decided by the court in favor of the present objector; that within parcel B, as seen on map A, he owns a lot with a house erected thereon, the boundaries of which are, on the north, the Calle Real of Navotas; on the south, cultivated land, on the east, the lands of Miguel and Agustin Sianguio and Graciano Alcantara, and on the west, the lands of Angelo Angeles and Pedro Burgos; its area being 2,318.70 square meters; that he and his predecessors in interest have held the land as owners for a period of more than fifty years, possessing the same peacefully, quietly, and publicly; that he had never known the applicant as owner of the said land, nor asked his permission to build and erect a house nor to sow the land, for which reason he prayed the court to deny said application, and in case it be granted by the court, that a provision be inserted in the decree excluding the parcel of land the subject of his opposition, with the costs against the applicant.

Opposition was also filed by Macario Angeles, who , by his writing of the same date, entered a general and specific denial of all and every one of the facts set forth in the application, and by way of special defense stated that between the applicant and himself there is pending before the Court First Instance of Rizal civil case No. 211 for recovery of possession, the land which is the subject of his opposition being also in controversy in said case; that in that part of the land indicated on the map by the letter A, in the direction of the bay, the objector has a parcel of 1,623 square meters, with a house and a storehouse erected thereon, its boundaries being, on the north, the property of Damaso Oliveros; on the south, that o Gil Pascual; on the east, the field indicated in green ink, and on the west, the shore of Manila Bay; that the applicant obtained possession of a strip of this land, measuring 15 varas in length and 15 varas in width on the side bounded by the property of Gil Pascual, through ejectment proceedings instituted in said court, for which reason his opposition will not affect said strip of land; that the objector has been in quiet and peaceful possession, as owner of the parcel which is the subject of his opposition for a period of over thirty years; that he had never regarded the applicant is owner of the land, because, in former times, said property was shore land which by his work he converted into land fit for cultivation and building purposes and on which he has planted for a long time past trees such as mangoes, lomboy, tamarind (sampaloc), casuy, almond, camanchile, guava, cane, etc.; for which reason he prayed the court to deny the application, and in case it be granted, that a provision be inserted in the decree of the court excluding therefrom the parcel which is the subject of his opposition, with the costs against the applicant.

After the trial, and in view of the evidence submitted by both sides, and the documents presented having been made part of the record, the court, on April 30, 1908, rendered judgment in said case dismissing the oppositions filed by Marcelo Joingco and Macario Angeles, concerning the respective parcels of land mentioned by them, and an order of default having been previously made against any other objector, the court decreed the adjudication and registration of the parcels in question in favor of the applicant Miguel Pascual. The objectors, Jiongco and Angeles, filed an exception to said decree and also moved for the reopening and rehearing of the case on the ground that the findings of fact of said judgment are openly and plainly contrary to the weight of the evidence, and because the judgment is not supported by the evidence and ins contrary to law. The court, by an order dated May 15, 1908, denied said motion, to which they excepted, wherefore the corresponding bills of exceptions, duly approved, were forwarded to the office of the clerk of this court.

This is an application for the registration of property originally consisting of four parcels of land, of which two small ones are devoted to building and residential purposes, and the other two, of much greeted area, are used as fields for plantation purposes. Said four parcels were inscribed under different numbers in the old registry of property.

The opposition filed by the Attorney-General to the registration of the agricultural parcels of land was afterwards withdrawn in view of the data obtained by the Government and the outcome of the case and because the Government had no interest in said two parcels of agricultural land.

Let us now consider the opposition entered by Marcelo Joingco and Macario Angeles, the former alleging possession of a lot and a building thereon erected within parcel