Case Name: Ex Parte the Candelaria Fruit Company
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1904-05-12
Citations: 6 P.R. 537
Docket Number: No. 126
Parties: Ex Parte the Candelaria Fruit Company.
Judges: Jueces concurrentes: Sres. Hernández, Figueras, Sulz-bacher y MacLeary.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 537–546

Head Matter:
Ex Parte the Candelaria Fruit Company.
Appeal from the District Court of Areeibo.
No. 126.
Decided May 12, 1904.
Ownership — -Written Title. — Landowners who have no written title of ownership, regardless of the time of its acquisition, may reeord such ownership by proving the same according to the formalities prescribed by article 395 of the Mortgage Law
Id. — Possession—-Presctiption.—The words “regardless of the time of its acquisition,” inserted in the provisions of article 395 of the Mortgage Law, refer to the acquisition of the ownership, which can only be obtained after the expiration of the period of possession fixed by law for the prescription of ownership.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
This is a proceeding instituted in the District Court of Areeibo by Attorney José E. Benedicto, as the representative of The Candelaria Fruit Company, of San Juan, for the purpose of causing an investigation (to be made as to the ownership of a rural estate. The case is pending before us on an appeal taken by the representative of the claimant company from the judgment rendered by the .said district court, which reads as follows:
“Arecibo, October 2, 1903. Attorney José E. Benedicto instituted this proceeding concerning tbe ownership of real property on behalf of The Candelaria Fruit Company, domiciled in San Juan, asking the District Court of Arecibo to declare and order to be recorded in the Registry of Property, in favor of the claimant company, the full ownership of a rural estaté coimposed of 80 cuerdas, being equivalent to 30 hectares, 44 ares, 31 centares and 20 milliar’es of pasture ■and bramble lands, of the third class, situated in 'barrio ‘Coto,’ municipal district of Manatí.
“It appears from the documents accompanying his petition instituting the proceedings that Basilio Yélez Alvarado inherited one-half of said estate, according to the possessory proceedings of the same estate appearing of record in the Registry of Property of Arecibo, at folio 82 of book 14 of the municipality of Manatí, and that the said Basilio Velez Alvarado purchased the other one-half from his brother Evaristo by public deed executed in the month of October, 1901, both halves having been subsequently purchased by Nathaniel A. Walcott and Nathaniel P. Tyler by a deed which was recorded in favor of the purchasers in the Registry of Property of Arecibo on May 6, 1902.
“Nathaniel A. Walcott and Nathaniel P. Tyler subsequently sold said estate to Arthur C. Hansard, by public deed executed in San Juan on May 14,1902, and on the same date, and also by public deed, Arthur C. Hansard sold the same estate to The Candelaria Fruit Company for the sum of two hundred dollars, said deed having been recorded in the Registry of Property of Arecibo on May 21, 1902. ,
“ The 'formalities prescribed by article 395 of the Mortgage Law having been complied with, Arthur C. Hansard, Samuel P. Bates and Nathaniel P. Tyler testified under oath that the facts alleged were true, and that the Candelaria Fruit Colmpany has exercised acts of ownership over the estate described since the time it acquired the same, without opposition on the part of anyone.
“The record of proceedings having been referred to the office of the Attorney General, it made a report in favor of the approval of the same, inasmuch as it appeared therefrom that all the requirements prescribed by article 395 of the Mortgage Law had been complied with.
“According to article 395 of the existing Mortgage Law, the landowner who has no written title of ownership, regardless of the time of its acquisition, may record said ownership by proving it according to the formalities prescribed in the same article.
' ‘ The words, ‘ regardless of the time of its acquisition, ’ refer to the acquisition of ownership, and The Candelaria Fruit Company not having acquired the ownership constituting the subject-matter of this proceeding from any of its predecessors in interest, since the original grantor, Basilio Vélez Alvarado, had possession of only one-half thereof by inheritance, according to the record of possessory proceedings approved by the municipal council of Manatí, in an order of the 25th of June last, entered in the Registry of Property, it is clear that the said Candelaria Fruit Company cannot obtain the desired ownership until after the expiration of the period fixed by law for the prescription of ownership, from and after the commencement of the possession of Vélez.
‘ ‘ The ownership of the estate described in said order not appearing to have vested in The Candelaria Fruit Company by prescription, it cannot be ordered to be recorded as such in the Registry of Property.
“Having examined the provisions in question, it is not proper to hold that the ownership of the property involved in this proceeding has been established in favor of The Cndelaria Fruit Company. It was so ordered and signed by the judges of the court, to which I certify. •Felipe Cuchí, Carlos Franco Soto, Otto Schoenrich.- — José E. Figueras.”
From this judgment the attorney for The Candelaria Fruit Company took an appeal, which was allowed, and the record having been forwarded to this court, the parties having been cited, and the appellant having appeared, the appeal was conducted according to the proper procedure and a day set for the hearing, ait which no one appeared except the Fiscal of this Supreme Court, who opposed the appeal.
Mr. Benedicto (José E.),for appellant.
Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice QuiñoNes,
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.
Having examined the legal provisions therein cited, we ad judge that we ought to affirm and do affirm said judgment, with costs against the appellant.
Jueces concurrentes: Sres. Hernández, Figueras, Sulz-bacher y MacLeary.