Case Name: Ex Parte Kuinlan
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1904-05-12
Citations: 6 P.R. 547
Docket Number: No. 125
Parties: Ex Parte Kuinlan.
Judges: Justices Hernandez, Figueras and MacLeary concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 547–553

Head Matter:
Ex Parte Kuinlan.
Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
No. 125.
Decided May 12, 1904.
Dominion Title — Possession to Acquire Same. — Where, in a proceeding to acquire a title of ownership to real property, the petitioner fails to show possession under a proper title for more than six years, or that the possession has been quiet, peaceable and uninterrupted for thirty years, the ownership of the property cannot be held to have been established in his favor.
STATEMENT OE TI-IE CASE.
This is a proceeding instituted in the District Court of San Juan by Attorney Luis Freyre Barbosa, on behalf of Juan José Cesáreo Kuinlan, fox the purpose of establishing the ownership of a rural estate, which case is pending before us on appeal taken by the petitioner from the judgment rendered by aforesaid district court, which reads as follows:
“Porto Rico, September 1, 1903. Attorney Luis Freyre Barbosa, as the representative of José Cesáreo Kuinlan, applied to the court on February 20 with a petition alleging that his client, having no written title, desired to prove, pursuant to article 395 of the Mortgage Law, and Judicial Order of April 4, 1899, his ownership of a tract of land, situated in barrio ‘Candelaria,’ of Toa Baja, now the district of Bayamón, the same consisting of 20 cuer-das, being equivalent to 9 hectares, 11 ares and 70 eentares; bounded on the north, by property belonging to the same owner and lands owned by Laureano Rodríguez; on the south, by lands belonging to Nicolás Román, represented by his wife Martina Medina, and to Leandro Semprit; on the east, by lands belonging to Teresa Prieto and Antonio Ineel; and on the west, by properties of Marcela Ortiz and Socorro Cruz; alleging that his client acquired the same from the municipal council of Toa Baja, and that said lands are valued at three hundred and sixty dollars. He prayed that the previous owner and the adjoining ones be cited, as also the Fiscal; that notices be published and a call issued for the unknown persons whom the desired record might prejudice; and that the municipal judge of Bayamón be commissioned to conduct the proper proceedings, covering the following interrogatories: 1. Qualifications of witnesses, as required by law; 2. Whether it is true and known to them of their own knowledge that the property described belongs to my client, he having acquired the same about five years ago; 3. AYhether it is true that from the date of its acquisition he has been in quiet and peaceable possession thereof, without opposition on the part of anyone.
“The petition being admitted notice thereof was served upon the Department of Justice; the notices were published in the ‘Her-aldo Español;’ adjoining landowners were cited, as also Juan Matheu in his capacity as representative of the municipal council of Toa Baja, former owner of the property.
“Upon the taking of evidence, two witnesses testified to the second interrogatory that the same was true according to their own knowledge, as also the third interrogatory, adding that the land described had been acquired by the petitioner from the municipal council of Toa Baja, which had acquired it from Inocencio Bojas, by virtue of compulsory proceedings instituted for the recovery of taxes, and that said Bojas had possessed the land for more than twenty years, without opposition by a third party.
“The period of sixty days having elapsed without any objection to the desired declaration of ownership, and a day being set for the oral hearing with citation of the Fiscal, the same wias had, the petitioner presenting then and there such arguments as by him were deemed necessary.
‘ ‘ Possession with a just title for more than six years has not been proven, inasmuch as Kuinlan has been in possession of the property only for five years, by purchase from the municipal council, and the time during which the latter was in possession does not appear, nor has it been shown that the title by which it had acquired the property was good, for neither a certified copy of the record of the compulsory proceedings, nor the title by which Bojas had possessed said property has been produced.
“The testimony of the witnesses is not sufficient for the purposes of a declaration of ownership based on a quiet, peaceable and uninterrupted possession for thirty years, because said witnesses fail to give any reason for their statements when declaring that Bojas had possessed the lands in question for more than twenty years, nor have they shown that said possession extended for thirty years.
“In view of article 395 of the Mortgage Law, Judicial Order of April 4, 1899, and section 1247 of the Civil Code, the declaration of ownership applied for is denied. Thus it was decided and signed by the judges of the court, to which I certify. Frank IT. Bichmond, José Tous Soto, Otto Schoenrich. — Luis Méndez Vaz.”
From this judgment the representative. of the petitioner took an appeal, which was allowed for a review and stay of proceedings. The record was forwarded to this Supreme Court wiith citation of the parties, and the appellant having appeared, the case was conducted under the proper procedure. A day was set for the hearing, at which appeared only the Fiscal of this Supreme Court, who opposed the appeal.
Mr. Freyre Barbosa, for appellant.
Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.

Opinion:
Me. Chief Justice Quiñones,
after making the above statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the conrt.
The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the judgment appealed from are accepted.
We adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm aforesaid judgment, with costs against the appellant.
Justices Hernandez, Figueras and MacLeary concurred.
Mr. Justice Sulzbacher did not sit at the hearing of this case.