Case ID: pr_6/html/0501-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mb. Chief Justice QuiñoNes,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex Parte Sanfeliz.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
    No. 104
    Decided May 12, 1904.
    Dominion Title — Prescription.—It is an indispensable requisite to the acquisition of the ownership of real property by ordinary prescription to state, and to prove in all cases, the title by which it is held, specifying it particularly, in order to enable the court to determine whether or not it is a proper title for the purposes of prescription.
    Id. — Possession to Acquire Same. — Possession for six years or more is necessary to acquire the ownership of real property by prescription.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    This is a proceeding instituted in the District Court'of San Juan at the instance of Attorney Santiago B. Palmer, as the representative of Manuel Sanfeliz, to obtain a declaration of ownership of a .rural estate, which case is pending before ns on an appeal taken by counsel for the petitioner from a judgment rendered by the said district court on the 28tb of July last, the same reading as follows:
    “San Jnan, Porto Rico, July 28, 1903. Manuel Sanfeliz presented a petition alleging that he is the owner of a rural estate situated in barrio ‘Palos Blancos,’ of Toa Alta, consisting of seventy-three cuer-das, more or less, bounded on the north by a brook which flows into the Corozal river, lands belonging to the estate of Pedro Gonzalez, Juan Ortiz Ortiz, Marcelino Gonzalez and Juana Nieves, on the east by lands of Juan Ortiz, Juana Nieves and Abdon Fuentes, a neigh-hood road of barrio ‘Mana’ and lands of Juan Ortiz Ortiz, and on the west by the Oorozal river, of which estate he has been in possession for more than two years by virtue of purchase from Valentín Gon-zález, who had been in the peaceable possession thereof for more than twelve years as owner, paying the taxes thereon as petitioner has paid them; that the value thereof is five hundred dollars, without any incumbrance whatever, and that he has no recorded title, and that therefore he institutes the proper proceeding to have the ownership of the property declared in his favor.
    “The proceedings having .been admitted, and a citation having been served upon the Fiscal, the former owner, the adjoining property owners, the persons having any right to the property, anid upon the unknown persons who might be prejudiced by the record, by means of public notices, the proper steps were taken- in the premises and three witnesses testified that it, is true, and that they know of their own knowledge, that the petitioner is the owner of the rural estate described; that he obtained by purchase from Valentin González more than two years ago, having been in peaceable possession thereof as owner; two of the witnesses adding that it is also known to them of their own knowledge that the vendor, at the time of making the sale of the property described, had been in quiet possession thereof for the period of twelve years paying taxes thereon. The hearing having been held, the parties alleged such matters as were deemdd by them conducive to their rights.
    “Apart from the fact that the petition instituting the proceedings does not state whether or not the petitioner has a written title, but does set forth that he has a recorded title (which is not the same thing, since he may be without a recorded title through inability to record a defective written title of ownership, of which he would not then be devoid), the evidence taken to establish the fact that Sanfeliz was the owner of the estate to which he is attempting to prove ownership is not sufficient, because -although by adding to his possession of two years that of twelve years of the former possessor, he has in his favor a possession of fourteen years in presumptive good faith, the title by which said former possessor held the property does not appear, and it cannot therefore be determined whether it was a proper title or not; it only appearing that the peitioner, by a title of purchase, which is a proper title, has been in possession solely for two years, and at least six years with a proper title and in good faith are required for the acquisition of ownership, according to the Judicial Order of April 4, 1899.
    ‘ ‘ There is no evidence or allegation to the effect that the petitioner has acquired the property by any of the other means (except prescription) provided by law.
    “Having examined the articles applicable of the Mortgage Law, the Civil Code, and the judicial order cited, the declaration of ownership applied for is denied. So ordered and signed by the court, to which I certify: Juan Morera Martínez, Frank H. Richmond, José Tous Soto. — Luis Méndez Vaz. ”
    From this judgment counsel for the petitioner, Manuel Sanfeliz, took an appeal, which was freely admitted for a review and a stay of proceedings, and the irecord having been forwarded to this court, the parties having been duly cited, and the appellant having appeared, the appeal was conducted according to the proper procedure and a day set for ithe hearing, at which the attorney for the appellant and the Fiscal of this Supreme Court, who opposed the appeal, were present.
    
      Mr. Palmer, for appellant.
    
      Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.
   Mb. Chief Justice QuiñoNes,

after stating the foregoing facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

The findings of fact of the judgment appealed from are accepted.

Before the holding of the hearing for which the parties were cited, the attorney for the petitioner presented a writing in which he set forth that in his original petition, through an involuntary error, he had stated that his client had no “recorded” title, instead of stating that he had no “written” title of ownership, whereupon it was ordered that said statement should be considered a;s having been made, and the writing in question should he added to his record.

Notwithstanding the rectification made in the said writing by the attorney for the petitioner, it would not he proper to make the requested declaration of ownership in favor of the latter, inasmuch as the witnesses produced only testified that he was in possession of the land in question for more than two years, hut without specifying that he possessed it for sis years or more, which is the period of possession required hy the Judicial Order of April 4, 1899, and which is applicable to the case ; and although they add that the former owner of the land was in the quiet and peaceable possession thereof for a period of more than twelve years and had paid the taxes thereon, they fail to state whether or not he was in possession under title, which is an indispensable requisite to the acquisition of real property by ordinary prescription, and which must always be proven, specifying it particularly, in order that the court may determine whether or not it is a proper title for the purposes of prescription. These requisites have not been complied with in the present case, and accordingly it cannot be held that the ownership claimed by the petitioner has been well established.

Having examined article 395 of the Mortgage Law, articles 1940, 1952, 1953 and 1954 of the old Civil Code, and the Judicial Order of April 4, 1899, we adjudge that we ought tp affirm and do affirm the judgment appealed from, in so far as it denies the declaration of ownership requested, with costs against the appellant.

Justices Hernández, Figueras, Sulzbacher' and MacLeary concurred.