[G.R. No. 10119. November 4, 1915. ]
MARIANO SEVERO TUASON Y DE LA PAZ, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE MUNICIPALITY OF MARIQUINA, Defendant-Appellant.
Benito Natividad, provincial fiscal of Rizal and Silvestre Apacible for Appellant.
Gilbert, Haussermann, Cohn & Fisher for Appellees.
1. REGISTRATION OF LAND; "LEGUA COMUNAL." — Held: Under the facts stated in the opinion, that the plaintiffs were entitled to have the land in question registered under the torrens system, and that, under the decision in the case of City of Manila v. Insular Government (10 Phil. Rep., 327) the defendant did not own any of the land in question, as a part of the legua comunal.
D E C I S I O N
The purpose of the present action was to obtain the registration, under the torrens system, of certain lands, which are particularly described in the complaint. The petition was presented in the Court of Land Registration on the 25th of September, 1911. To the registration of said lands there were numerous oppositions presented, the greater portion of which were withdrawn before the cause was brought on for trial.
After some amendments were made to the original petition, as well as to the original plans presented by the petitioner, the cause was finally brought on for trial. After hearing all of the parties, and after a careful consideration of all of the proof adduced during the trial, the Honorable Jesse George, one of the judges of the Court of Land Registration, in a very interesting and carefully prepared opinion in which he analyzed the facts and applied the law thereto, reached the conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to have said lands registered under the torrens system, and so decreed.
From that decision the municipality of Mariquina appealed to this court and made several assignments of error. Without discussing in detail the particular assignments of error, it may be said that the appellant insists that it is the owner of two of the parcels of land included in the lands which the plaintiffs are seeking to have registered.
First: The defendant insists that it is the owner of a small parcel of said land upon which it had formerly constructed a municipal building; and
Second: That the legua comunal which belonged to it was included in the lands which the plaintiffs are seeking to have registered.
In the first place, while there is some proof that prior to the year 1882 there was a building which had been used by the municipality, located upon a small portion of the land in question, yet there is no proof that the land upon which said building was located belonged or ever did belong to the Appellant. And moreover said alleged municipal building was destroyed by a Baguio in 1882 and the appellant made no claim to the ownership of said parcel from that time up to the time of the presentation of its opposition in the present case. The record shows that said parcel of land had been occupied from or about the year 1882 by another person or persons, who had recognized the claim of the plaintiffs by paying rent therefor. There is not a scintilla of proof in the record justifying the claim made by the appellant to that portion of the land in question.
With reference to the alleged legua comunal, it may be said: (1) that the appellant made no effort, either in its opposition or during the trial of the cause, to definitely and accurately locate said legua comunal; and (2) the appellant made no effort to show that it had ever been conceded the legua comunal by any authority whatsoever.
In view of the decision of this court in the case of the City of Manila v. Insular Government (10 Phil. Rep., 327), and the discussion therein relating to the right of municipalities in relation of leguas comunales, we deem it un- necessary to discuss at length that question here.
With reference to the other assignments of error made by the appellant,-after a careful examination of the record, we are of the opinion that none of them, in any way or manner whatsoever, tend to show that the conclusion of the lower court was not in accordance with the evidence and the law; and, without a further discussion of the evidence and the law applicable to the present case, we are of the opinion and so hold that the judgment and decree of the lower court should be and is hereby affirmed, with cost. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson and Araullo, JJ., concur.