Case Name: Ex Parte Pacheco
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1904-02-20
Citations: 5 P.R. 339
Docket Number: No. 89
Parties: Ex Parte Pacheco.
Judges: Justices Hernández, Figueras and MacLeary concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 339–345

Head Matter:
Ex Parte Pacheco.
Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
No. 89.
Decided February 20, 1904.
Ownership. — The citation of the person from whom the property is derived, or of his predecessor in interest, is an essential requisite in proceedings to establish the ownership of real estate.
Id. — Possession to Acquire the Same. — Mere possession for twenty years is not sufficient to establish ownership which the petitioner claims over real estate, in cases in which the ownership of 'a former possessor does not appear, nor the date and other circumstances under which the alienation in favor of the petitioner is effected.
STATEMENT OP TI-IE CASE.
These are proceedings instituted in the District Court of San Juan at the instance of Manuel Pacheco for the purpose of establishing ownership of a rural estate, which case is pending before us on appeal taken by counsel for the petitioner from the judgment rendered by said district court. Said judgment reads as follows:
“Porto Rico, July sixth, one thousand nine hundred and three. In the matter of proceedings instituted by Damián Monserrat y Simó, on behalf of Manuel Pacheco, for the purpose of establishing his ownership of a rural estate.
“On tbe 10th of March last, the said attorney appeared before the District Court of San Juan, stating that by virtue of purchase from Nicolás Román, some years before, his client owned five mierdas of land situated in barrio ‘Candelaria,’ of Toa Baja, now Bayamón, and having no recorded title of ownership, he instituted the proper proceedings to secure said written title, under article 395 of the Mortgage Law. After hearing the opinion of the district attorney, the examination of witnesses proposed was ordered, with citation of aforesaid district attorney, of the vendor, of those who had any property right in the land described, and of adjoining landowners, within a period of sixty days, a call to be issued for the unknown persons whom the desired record might prejudice, by means of notices posted in the customary public places and published three times in a local newspaper having the largest circulation. After posting the notices and publishing the same in three successive issues of the ‘Heraldo Español’ of the 26th, 27th and 28th of March last, and citing Martina Medina, instead of her husband, Nicolás Román, said to be of unsound mind, and the adjoining landowners, two witnesses who were certified by the clerk of the municipal court of Toa-Alta to be known to him, testified in accordance with the'interrogatories propounded by the petitioner, no contestant having appeared in response to the calls made. The period fixed for the offer of evidence having expired, and the property in question not being valued at more than fifty dollars, the party concerned and the district attorney were cited for an oral trial to be held on the 10th of June last, at which both failed to appear. The evidence submitted was confined to two witnesses, who testified, in conformity with the interrogatories, that Pacheco had years before acquired from Nicolás Román the aforesaid five ctierdas of land, and that since the acquisition thereof he had been in quiet and peaceable possession of the land, without any opposition, adding only that said possession dates back more than twenty years. All the rules of procedure were not observed in the conduct of the investigation, for instead of personally citing Nicolás Román, from whom the petitioner declared he had acquired the lands, it appears, that Martina Medina was cited, who claimed to be his wife, which fact was not established, nor that of the mental incapacity of Nicolás Román. The court decided as follows:
‘ ‘ The citation of the person from whom the property is derived, or his legal successor in the ownership thereof, if he he known, is one of the most essential requisites prescribed by article 395 of the Mortgage Law. Mere possession for twenty years, vaguely spoken of by the two witnesses presented by Manuel Pacheco, is not sufficient to establish the ownership claimed by him of the hereinbefore described land, no evidence having been offered as to the ownership of Nicolás Román in the property in question, nor even as to the date and other circumstances attending the sale alleged to have been made by the latter. In view of the legal provisions cited, and other provisions of the Mortgage Law and of the Civil Code in force, applicable to the ease, it is declared: That Manuel Pacheco has not proven his ownership of the property in question and all his claims thereto are accordingly dismissed. It was so ordered by the judges of the court, to whose signatures I certify: Juan Morera Martínez, Frank H. Richmond, José Tous Soto. — Luis Méndez Vaz.”
From this decision counsel for the petitioner entered an appeal, which was allowed for review and stay of proceedings. The record was forwarded to this Supreme Court with citation of the parties, and the appellant having appeared and the appeal having been duly perfected, a day was set for the hearing, and the parties having been summoned, the hearing was held, the Fiscal of this Supreme Court being present, and counsel for appellant failing to appear.
Mr. Monserrat (Damián), for appellant.
Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Quiñones,
after making the above statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.
The findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the judgment appealed from are accepted.
In view of the legal provisions cited therein, we adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm said judgment, with costs against appellants.
Justices Hernández, Figueras and MacLeary concurred.
Mr. Justice Sulzbacher did not sit at tire Fearing of this case.