Case ID: pr_6/html/0523-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chibe Justice Quiñoues,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex Parte Fernández.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
    No. 73.
    Decided May 12, 1904.
    Dominion Title — Initial Petition — Whitten Title. — The supplementary means prescribed by the Mortgage Law of proving the ownership of real property through a judicial investigation can only be availed of by those persons who have no written title of ownership, and it is therefore necessary to set forth . this circumstance in the initial petition instituting the proceedings.
    
      Ib. — Evidence.—The rules of evidence established by the Law of Civil Procedure are applicable to proceedings regarding the ownership of real property, and the court should consider the evidence adduced in reference to the acquisition of ownership with sound discretion.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    This is a proceeding instituted in the District Conrt of San Jnan at the instance of Attorney Emigdio S. Ginorio, on behalf of Jacinto Fernández Encarnación, to obtain a declaration of ownership of a rural estate, which case is pending before ns on an appeal taken by the petitioner from the jndg-. ment rendered by the said district conrt, which reads as follows :
    “Porto Rico, June 18, 1903. In a petition dated November 28, 1902, Attorney Emigdio S. Ginorio, on behalf of Jacinto Fernández Encamación, instituted proceedings in this court to establish the ownership of a rural estate consisting of one hundred and forty-two cuer-das of land, situated in barrio ‘Carrazos,’ of Carolina, composed of nine parcels purchased from different persons.
    “Said petition does not state whether the claimant has a written title of ownership or not.
    ‘ ‘ The witnesses produced by’ the petitioner testify that they know of their knowledge, ‘taken as a whole,’ the facts set forth in the said petition, as well as the fact of the quiet, peaceable and uninterrupted possession by Fernández of the lands constituting the subject-matter of the proceedings.
    “It is proper to have recourse to the supplementary means of proving ownership, by means of a judicial inquiry, only when the petitioner has no written title of ownership, and the express statement of this circumstance is therefore indispensable in order that the proceedings may be attended with success.
    ‘ ‘ The rules of evidence established by the Law of Civil Procedure are applicable to proceedings regarding the ownership of real property, and it is not possible to attribute real probatory value to the testimony of witnesses who do not testify to specific and concrete facts, but to a series of facts differing from each other, such as the acquisition of the nine parcels of land composing the estate involved in these proceedings, and the more so when the witnesses do not give the reasons for their statements.
    
      ‘ ‘ The court should consider the evidence offered with regard to the acquisition of ownership with rational judgment.
    “In view of tbe articles of the Mortgage Law and the Law of Civil Procedure applicable, the declaration of ownership applied for is denied. It was so ordered and signed by the judges of the court, to which I certify. Juan Morera Martínez, Frank H. Richmond, José Tons Soto. — Luis Méndez Yaz.”
    From this judgment counsel for the petitioner took an appeal, which was allowed both for a review and a stay of proceedings, and the record having been sent up to this court, after a citation of the parties, and the appellant having appeared, the appeal was conducted according to the proper procedure and a day was set for the hearing, at which no one was present except the Fiscal of this Supreme Court, who opposed the appeal.
    
      Mr. Ginorio (Emigdio /S'.), for appellant.
    
      Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.
   Mr. Chibe Justice Quiñoues,

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

The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the judgment appealed from are accepted.

We adjudge that we ought to affirm and do affirm the said judgment, with costs against the appellant.

Justices Hernández, Figueras, Sulzbacher and MacLeary concurred.