Case ID: pr_6/html/0149-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice QuiñoNes,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex Parte Pinto.
    Appear from the District Court of San Juan.
    No. 74.
    Decided April 4, 1904.
    Dominion Title — Original Petition' Instituting Pbooeedings. — Although in the original petition for the institution of proceedings to establish the ownership of real estate, it should be stated whether or not petitioner has a written dominion title, nevertheless, the petition having been admitted without such requisite, and without objection on the part of the court or Fiscal, it is not proper, after all legal proceedings have been had, to deny approval of the proceedings for want of such requisite, compliance with which should have been ordered by the court in due season.
    Id. — Possession to Acquire Ownership. — Quiet and peaeeable possession for a period of twenty-three years, under a title obtained by purchase, is more than sufficient to acquire the ownership of real estate by prescription, since possession for six years in good faith and under a proper title is all that is required for this purpose.
    
      STATEMENT OE THE OASB.
    This is a proceeding instituted in the District Court - of San Jnan by Attorney Damián Monserrat y Simó on behalf of Ignacia Pinto,, for the purpose of determining the ownership of a rural estate, which case is pending before us on appeal taken by the petitioner from the judgment rendered by aforesaid court on July 15, last, in which the application for the declaration of ownership was denied.
    Attorney Damian Monserrat y Simó, on behalf of Ignacia Pinto, instituted proceedings in the District Court of San Juan, for the purpose of establishing her ownership of a tract of land consisting of 10% cuerdas, situated in barrio “Candelaria,” within the municipal district of Toa Baja, valued at one hundred and five dollars, which she acquired through purchase from Maximina Martinez on May 18, 1881, stating that she had no recorded title.
    The aforesaid application having been referred to the Fiscal of the court, it was returned by him wdth the statement that he saw no objection to the taking of the evidence proposed by the petitioner. The inquiry applied for was allowed, and a call issued for the unknown persons whom the desired record might prejudice. All the other legal formalities having been complied with, the witnesses, G-enaro Dávila and Antonio Montanez, of age and residents of barrio “Can-delaria,” where the land is situated, testified that it was true and personally known to them that Ignacia Pinto had acquired the land in question by purchase of Maximina Martinez, in the year 1881, and that since then she had been in quiet and peaceable possession thereof, without opposition.
    The petitioner and the Fiscal, the only parties interested in the proceedings, having been summoned to a verbal hearing for the purpose of alleging therein whatever might be deemed pertinent to their respective rights, and neither of the parties interested having appeared, the District Court of San Jnan rendered judgment on July 15th, last, deciding that it was not competent to make the declaration of ownership applied for by the petitioner, Ignaeia Pinto, and specified as sole ground for said decision! ‘ that only owners who have no written title of ownership' can avail themselves of the provisions of title XIY of the Mortgage Law, which fact, at least, should be stated in the- petition instituting the proceedings, it not being sufficient to allege the lack of a recorded title. ”
    Prom this decision the attorney for the petitioner took an appeal, which was allowed for a review and stay of proceedings. The record being duly forwarded to this Supreme Court with citation of the parties, and the appellant having appeared, the case was conducted under the proper procedure, and a day set for the hearing, at which the only one to appear was the Fiscal of this court, who opposed the appeal.
    
      Mr Monserrat, for the appellant.
    
      Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.
   Mr. Chief Justice QuiñoNes,

after making the above statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

Although in the initial written petition calling for the institution of proceedings to establish ownership it should be stated whether or not the petitioner has a written dominion title, the statement that he has no recorded title being insufficient for the purpose, the court having allowed the inquiry applied for without such requisite, it cannot now, after having gone through al'l the stages of the proceeding, dismiss it on its own motion by reason of a defect of form which the court could and should have corrected at the commencement thereof, by absolutely refusing to allow the inquiry applied for; . .

On the other hand, Ignaeia Pinto has shown by the con-earring testimony of two witnesses.of legal age and residents of the locality in which the land is situated, that the petitioner had acquired the same by purchase from Maximina Martinez in the year 1881, that is, some twenty-three years ago, from which time she has been .in quiet and peaceable possession thereof, which requisites are more than sufficient to acquire, by prescription, ownership of real property, according to article 1957 of the old Civil Code, and Judicial Order of April 4, 1899, which requires for said purpose only an uninterrupted possession for six years, in good faith and with proper title.

In view of the legal provisions cited, and article 395 of the Mortgage Law in force, we adjudge that we should reverse. and do reverse the judgment appealed from and approve the desired proceedings to establish ownership; and declaring that Ignacia Pinto has proved her ownership of the land specified in the petition instituting' these proceedings, we order that a certified copy of the present decision he issued to her, together with such other data as she may desire for purposes of its admission to record in the Registry of Property.

Justices Hernández, Figueras and MacLeary concurred.

Mr. Justice Sulzhacher did not sit at the hearing of this case.