Case ID: pr_6/html/0219-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chief Justice Quiñokes,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex Parte Loubriel.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
    No. 115.
    Decided April 7, 1904.
    Dominion Title — Possession to Acquire the Same — Good Paith — Proper Title — Ordinary Prescription.- — Quiet and peaceable possession for twenty years is not sufficient in itself to acquire the ownership of real estate by ordinary prescription, since good faitb and a proper title are also required, tbe former being presumed and it being neeessary to prove tbe latter.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    This is a proceeding instituted in. the District Court of San Jnan by Mannel Lonbriel y Cabrera on his own behalf and as the representative of his sisters and brothers, Carmen, Trinidad, Providencia, and Agustín Lonbriel y Cabrera and Segundo Lonbriel y Fonseca, as heirs of their deceased father, Modesto' Lonbriel, to obtain a declaration of ownership to various urban estates. The case is pending before us on an appeal prosecuted by the petitioner from a judgment rendered by the said district court, which reads as follows:
    “August 21, 1903. This proceeding instituted by Manuel Lou-briel y Cabrera, on his own behalf and as the representative of his sisters and brothers, Carmen, Trinidad, Providencia and Agus-tín Loubriel y Cabrera, and Segundo Loubriel Fonseca, successors of Modesto Loubriel, deceased, concerning the ownership of various urban estates situated in the town of Bayamón, came on to be heard.
    “On the 27th of January last the said Loubriel applied to this court, stating that the said estate of his father possessed a house and lot on Rey street in said town, and another lot with two houses on Santa Cruz street in the same town, and another lot in the same street with a strip of land in the rear thereof; that he had no written title to the said estates, and that his late father, Modesto, who died on the 25th of August of last year, likewise had no written title; and that he therefore instituted the proper proceedings in accordance with the provisions of article 395 et seq. of the Mortgage Law, to establish his ownership of said estates, for which purpose he prayed that the evidence which he was ready to offer be admitted, with a hearing of the Department of Justice and citation of the former owners and adjoining property owners.
    “He stated in said petition that the estate of Loubriel had acquired said property through inheritance from its predecessor in interest, Modesto, who obtained the first estate through inheritance from Ms son, Alberto Loubriel y Cabrera, in whose favor it is recorded in the Registry of Property of this city at folio 149, reverse side, of book 3 of Bayamón; the second, by purchase from Marcelino Pardo; and the third, by sale made to him by Esteban Giménez.
    “The proposed inquiry having been ordered with a citation of the Fiscal, the former owners, Marcelino Pardo and Esteban Giménez, and the adjoining property owners, without the petitioner having presented any interrogatories, the witnesses Pablo Lavandero and José Alonso González, residents of Bayamón, who are married and landowners, of legal age, were examined in accordance with his original petition. Said sworn statements constitute all the evidence offered by the petitioner.
    “The witnesses in question confined themselves to testifying that they knew of their own knowledge that the said property belongs to the estate of Loubriel through inheritance from the father, Modesto, who was in possession of it in his own name without opposition on the part of third persons for a period of more than twenty years, and that the said heirs at present hold it under the same conditions.
    “That the said witnesses stated nothing, nor has any other evidence been offered, with respect to the manner in which Modesto Loubriel acquired the ownership of the said estates so as to be able to transmit the same to his heirs and successors, and it likewise has not been shown in any way that Modesto Loubriel inherited from his son, Alberto Loubriel y Cabrera, either in whole or in part, the first estate involved in his claim' or demand, nor has it even been stated from whom Alberto obtained it, so that said person might also have been cited as the former possessor, inasmuch as Alberto having died it was impossible to cite him personally.
    “In the conduct of these proceedings the formalities prescribed by law have been observed, and no opposition has been made to the claim- or demand made by the petitioner.
    ' “Notwithstanding this fact, however, it is not possible to accede to said claim for the reason that the evidence submitted is wholly deficient, inasmuch as the titles have not been established by virtue of which Modesto Loubriel acquired the estates in question, nor have they even been indicated by his witnesses, who do not mention any of the former possessors, nor the titles which they(held.
    “If, as a matter of fact, the ownership of the first piece of property is recorded in the Registry of Property in favor of Alberto Lou-briel y Cabrera, it being proven in said Registry that bis father, Modesto, was his only heir, and that, by the death of the latter, his children first above mentioned have inherited it, that is a sufficient reason for recording the ownership of the said estate in their favor, without the necessity of its being ordered by this court, the fact being, on the contrary, that the spirit and letter of the Mortgage Law are opposed to proceedings of this nature for obtaining the record of the ownership of property which is already recorded in the Registry of Property.
    “Finally, mere possession for twenty or twenty-one years, without good faith and a proper title of acquisition, is not sufficient to acquire the ownership of real estate by prescription, since in such case the law requires the lapse of at least thirty years.
    “Having examined the provisions of the Mortgage Law and the Civil Code applicable to the case, it is declared that the estate of Modesto Loubriel, on behalf of which this proceeding has been instituted and maintained by Manuel Loubriel, has failed to show by any of the means recognized by law the ownership of the pieces of property involved in his demand, which is accordingly rejected.
    “It was so ordered and signed by the court, to which I certify. Frank II. Richmond, José Tous Soto. The Chief Justice Juan Morera Martínez voted in open court, and does not sign by reason of absence. Frank II. Richmond. — Luis Mendez Vaz.”
    From this judgment the counsel for the petitioner took an appeal, which, was allowed for a review and a stay of proceedings, and the record having been sent up to this court with a citation of the parties, and the appellant having appeared, the proper proceedings were had and a day set for the hearing, at which only the Fiscal of this court was present and opposed the appeal.
    
      Mr. Monserrat, for appellant.
    
      Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.
   Mr. Chief Justice Quiñokes,

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

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

Considering the evidence taken, and which is confined to tlie testimony of the two witnesses who testified in this ease, it is not possible to hold that the estate of Modesto Loubriel has established the ownership of the real estate involved in the present proceeding, inasmuch as it is not shown for what length of time the petitioners have been in possession; and although the two witnesses produced declare that Modesto Loubriel was in possession for more than twenty years, without opposition on the part of third persons, that circumstance in itself is not sufficient to acquire the ownership of real property by ordinary prescription, which is that which serves as the basis of the petition. In addition to the possession for the time required by law, good faith and a proper title are required, this latter being a requisite which is not presumed and it is necessary to prove it, and that has not been done in the present case, since the witnesses do not state the nature of the title by virtue of which the said property was acquired hy the deceased Modesto Loubriel, from whom it is alleged that the petitioners inherited it, and therefore it is not possible to make the declaration of ownership applied for.

Having examined article 395 of the Mortgage Law in force, and articles 1940, 1952, 1953 and 1954 of the old Civil Code, and the Judicial Order of April 4,1899, we adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm the judgment appealed from, with costs against the appellant.

Justices Hernández, Figueras and' MacLeary concurred.

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