Case Name: Ex Parte Hawes
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1903-06-16
Citations: 4 P.R. 17
Docket Number: No. 37
Parties: Ex Parte Hawes.
Judges: Chief Justice Quinones, and Justices Sulzbacher, and MacLeary concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 17–21

Head Matter:
Ex Parte Hawes.
Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
No. 37.
Decided June 16, 1903.
Dominion Title. — If in a proceeding instituted for the purpose of securing 3. declaration of dominion title, the time during which the property has-been in possession of the grantors is not shown, and if it is only shown that the petitioner has been in possession of the property for two months, a dominion title to such property cannot be declared to have been proven.
STATEMENT OP THE CASE.
In a proceeding prosecuted for the purpose of securing a declaration of ownership or dominion title, by Frederick W. Hawes, representing his wife, María Noel, the District Court of San Juan, made an order which, literally transcribed, reads as follows:
“Porto Rico March 20, 1908. Frederick W. Hawes, a resident of this city, of age and an employee, on behalf of his wife María Noell, filed a petition in this court alleging that his wife was the owner of a tract of land situated in barrio “Pájaros”, within the municipal district of Bayamón, consisting of nine cuerdas and one hundred and twentjr-two varas, equal to three hectares, fifty-four ares and seventy-five and seventy-one hundredths cent-ares, bounded on the north by lands belonging to J. Better; on the south by lands belonging to Dr. Leonact; on the east 'by lands belonging to J. Better, and on the west by the estate of Medina; that said land was acquired by her by purchase from Pedro Dávila y Cedeño and his wife Beatriz Sem-pers y Giballo, who had obtained it from Silvano Marrero, and the latter from Pablo Lavandero and his wife Dionisia Medina; .the value of said tract of land being sixty-three dollars, and as she had no title recorded for the purposes of registry, she resorted to these proceedings proposing as evidence the testimony of the vendor and that of Silvano Marrero, who would testify as to their knowledge of the quiet and peaceful possession of the property from the time it was acquired, and also that said land was free from incum-brance.
After hearing the opinion of the Fiscal, the court, on January 2, last, ordered that the Attorney-General, the persons from whom the tract was acquired, and those having any property rights therein, as well as the adjoining owners, all be cited and that the taking of the evidence proposed be proceeded with within the period of sixty days, and that all unknown persons who might be prejudiced by the declaration of ownership be cited by means of edicts posted in public places and published three times in a paper having the largest circulation.
The edicts were posted and published in three issues — January 7, 8 and 9, of the “Boletín Mercantil”, and more than the aforesaid period of sixty days having elapsed without the presentation of any claim in ■opposition to the petitioner’s request, either during the said period or thereafter, the evidence proposed by the petitioner was taken, the Fiscal, the vendor, who testified in accordance with the facts hereinbefore set forth, and the adjoining owners having been cited, as also three other unimpeachable witnesses residents of Bayamón, who testified as to their knowledge of the above' mentioned facts and of the acquisition of the property.
In the consideration of this petition all the rules of procedure were observed.
Inasmuch as the time during which the property in question had been in possession of the persons from whom the petitioner had acquired it has not been shown, the only fact known being that of its purchase two months ago by the petitioner, it is impossible for the court to determine whether the said property had been acquired by peaceful and uninterrupted possession under title of ownership, nor has the acquisition of said right been established by any of the other means provided for by law.
In view of articles 395 of the Mortgage Law, and 1831, 1840, 1841, 1842 of the Civil Code, and General Order of April 4,' 1899, the ownership of the property in question can not be declared inasmuch as the right thereto has not been proven. The foregoing judgment was concurred in by a majority of the court, the Presiding Judge dissenting, the same being signed before me, to which I certify. Juan Morera Martínez — Frank PI. Richmond —José Tous Soto — Luis Méndez Vas”.
Petitioner’s husband having been notified of this order, he took an appeal therefrom which was allowed and after citing the parties, the record was forwarded to this Supreme Court, where the appellant in due time appeared, the record having been submitted to ■ him as also to the Fiscal who contested the appeal.
A day was set for the hearing which was had on the 11th of this month when both parties presented such arguments as were deemed pertinent to their respective claims.
Mr. Bosch, for appellant. _
Mr. del Toro, Fiscal of the Supreme Court.

Opinion:
Me. Justice Figuekas,
after making the above statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.
The findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the order appealed from are accepted, and in view of the legal provisions therein cited, and articles 872 of the Law of Civil Procedure, and 63 of General Order No. 118, we adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm the order made on March 20, 1903 by the District Court of San Juan, with costs against appellant.
Chief Justice Quinones, and Justices Sulzbacher, and MacLeary concurred.
Mr. Justice Hernández, did not sit at'the hearing of this case.