Case ID: pr_6/html/0509-01.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 Tapia.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
    No. 79.
    Decided May 12, 1904.
    DOMINION Title — Possession—Good Faith — Pkescbiptioh.—Quiet and peaceable possession for more than six years under a proper title, namely, one of purchase and sale, and in good faith, aire the essential requisites to the acquisition of the ownership of real property by prescription.
    Id. — Initial Petition. — Although, in the initial petition in proceedings involving the ownership of real property, it must be alleged whether or not the petitioner has a written title of ownership, nevertheless, the petition having been entertained without such requisite, and without objection on the part of the court or Fiscal, it is not proper, after all the legal formalities have been complied with, to deny approval of the proceedings owing to the absence of such requisite, the omission of which should have been ordered supplied by the court in due season.
    STATEMENT 'OF THE CASE.
    This is a proceeding instituted in the District Court of San Juan, at the instance of Leandro Tapia Santana to obtain a declaration of ownership of a rural estate, pending before us on an appeal taken by the attorney for the petitioner from the judgment rendered by said district court, which reads as follows:
    “Porto Rico, June 30, 1903. Leandro Tapia Santana made application to have the ownership of a rural estate, situated in barrio ‘ Carolina, ’ composed of forty-one cuerdas, and having a value of five hundred dollars, declared in his favor, and stated in his petition instituting the proceedings that he has no recorded title of ownership.
    “Only landowners who have no written title of ownership can take advantage of the provisions of title XVI of the Mortgage Law, which circumstance, at least, must be set forth in the initial petition in the proceedings, it not being sufficient to allege the want of a recorded title.
    “Having examined article 395 of the Mortgage Law, the declaration of ownership applied for is denied. So ordered and signed by the court. I certify: Juan Morera Martínez, Frank H. Richmond, José Tous Soto.' — Luis Méndez Yaz.”
    From this judgment counsel for the petitioner took an appeal, -which was freely allowed both for a review and a stay of proceedings, and the record was forwarded to this court after citation of the parties. The appellant having appeared, the appeal was conducted according to the proper procedure and a day 'set for the hearing, at which no one was present except the Fiscal of this Supreme Court, who opposed the appeal.
    
      Mr Ginorio (Emigdio 8.), for appellant.
    
      Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the people.
   Mr.'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.

Furthermore, the witnesses Mariano Hernandez y Hernán-dez and Cándido Suárez y Bodriguez, produced by the petitioner, testify that it is true and known to them of their own knowledge that Leandro Tapia y Santana has been the owner and lawfully in possession of the rural estate in controversy for more than six years, having acquired it from the persons, under the title, and in the proportion set forth in the interrogatories propounded by the petitioner, and has not been disturbed by any one in the use and enjoyment of said rural estate.

The testimony of the two witnesses who testified in the present investigation constitutes sufficient evidence upon which to base the declaration of ownership applied for by the petitioner, Leandro Tapia y Santana, inasmuch- as they both declare that he has been in the quiet and peaceable possession of the estate in question for more than six years, under a proper title, namely, one of purchase and sale, and in good faith, which are the essential requisites for acquiring the ownership of real estate by ordinary prescription, in accordance with, the Judicial Order of April 4, 1899, applicable to this case.

Although in the petition instituting these proceedings it was not stated that the petitioner had no written title of ownership, as is necessary to enable property owners who have no title of that description to establish their ownership by means of the judicial inquiry prescribed by article 395 of the Mortgage Law, said petition having been admitted without such requisite, it is not proper at this time, after all the steps in the proceedings have been taken, for the court to reject it on its own motion for a defect of form which it could and should have corrected in any event, by rejecting eo instan-te the petition instituting this proceeding.

In view of the legal provisions cited in this decision, we adjudge that we ought to reverse and do reverse the judgment appealed from, declaring that the ownership of the rural estate described in the petition instituting this proceeding is vested in Leandro Tapia y Santana, and in consequence thereof we order that a duly certified copy of this judgment, as well as. the other portions of the record which he may have applied for, be issued to him for admission -to record in the Eegistry of Property.

Justices Hernández, Figueras, Sulzbacher and MacLeary concurred.