Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
During the trial in the court below the plaintiff offered certain
documents, showing her title to the land in question. The defendant
introduced several witnesses for the purpose of showing that she
had been in possession of the land in question since 1858 and that
she went into possession of said parcel of land by virtue of a certain
document showing that she had purchased said land of one German
Bate. This document was offered in evidence as proof of defendant's
title to said parcel of land, which document, however, the court
refused to admit in evidence, upon the ground that the said
document only referred to defendant's right to the house erected
upon said parcel of land. The defendant claimed that said document
showed her right to the possession not only of the house, but the
said parcel of lands as well.
cha nrob lesvi rtua lawlib rary
The defendant duly excepted to this ruling of the court and assigns
such ruling as an error in this court. The alleged document does not
appear here as a part of the bill of exceptions, the defendant
evidently believing that because the court refused the admission of
the same as evidence in the court below that she had no authority
to make the same a part of the bill of exceptions. The document
should have been attached to the record and made a part of the bill
of exceptions.
chanroblesvi rt ualawlib ra ry
By reason of the fact that the defendant claims that said document
clearly shows her title to the parcel of land in question and by
reason of the fact that said document is not here, we are unable to
decide what bearing said document has upon the question of the
right of possession to said parcel of land. We are of the opinion that
the inferior court committed an error in refusing to admit said
document in evidence as proof, and therefore hereby revoke the
sentence of the inferior court and order that after the expiration of
twenty days judgment be entered in accordance herewith, and said
cause be returned to that court for trial de novo. So ordered.
chanroble svi rtualaw lib rary
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-3826 December 7, 1907
CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS,Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JUANA
VALENCIA,Defendant-Appellant.
Ramon Diokno, for appellant.
Rafael Palma, for appellee.
WILLARD, J.:
This is the second time this case has appeared here. The first appeal
is reported in Volume V, page 182, of the Philippine Reports.
chanroblesvi rtualaw lib rary
The defendant and appellant claims that the tract of land occupied
by her is not included in the large tract of land described in the
plaintiff's deeds. We think that the contrary appears, not only from
the admissions made in the answer of the defendant but also from
the admissions made at the trial, to the effect that the tract of land
lot and that she be protected in the possession of it. It is also true
that the gobernadorcillomeasured the ground and caused her to
walk about it and to execute acts of dominion over it, such as were
customary in such proceedings, but it appears that, when he made
his final declaration as to the property of which she thereby became
the owner, he states that it was the improvements and the house,
and nothing is said about her being the owner of the land.
chanrob lesvi rtua lawlib rary
The judgment of the court below is affirmed with the costs of this
instance against the appellant. So ordered.
chanroble svi rtualaw lib rary
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-5028 February 20, 1909
JUANA VALENCIA,Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CARMEN AYALA DE
ROXAS,Defendant-Appellee.
Hartigan and Rohde for appellant.
Rosado, Sanz and Opisso for appellee.
WILLARD, J. :
Useful expenses are paid the possessor in good faith with the same
right of retention, the person who has defeated him in his
possession having the option of refunding the amount of the
expenses or paying him the increase in value the thing has acquired
by reason thereof.
So far as the plaintiff's claim to recover for the improvements is
based upon the first paragraph of this article, it can not be
sustained. The improvements consisted in filling the lot and erecting
a house thereon. The term "necessary expenses" was considered in
this court in the case of Alburo vs. Villanueva (7 Phil. Rep., 277),
and it was there held that the filling in and improvement of a lot
could not be brought under this head. The construction of the
house, of course, could not, because that was not at all necessary
for the preservation of the lot.
chanroblesvi rt ualawlib ra ry
The only evidence in the case to show the value of the use of the
land occupied by the plaintiff from the 1st of September, 1901, is
the following agreement made by the parties at the trial:
The parties agree that the lot next to the lot mentioned in the
complaint, occupied by the Chinese Pio Barretto, pays as rent to
Doa Carmen Ayala P237 a month for an area of 4,000 meters.
The lot occupied by the plaintiff has an area of 479.49 square
meters. There is no evidence to show whether the location of the lot
occupied by Barretto is better or worse than the situation of the lot