Case Name: Ex Parte Figueroa
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1904-05-12
Citations: 6 P.R. 543
Docket Number: No. 41
Parties: Ex Parte Figueroa.
Judges: Justices Hernández, Figueras, Sulzbacher and MacLeary concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 543–547

Head Matter:
Ex Parte Figueroa.
Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
No. 41.
Decided May 12, 1904.
Dominion- Title — Possession to Acquire Same — Prescription.—In order to acquire the ownership of real property by ordinary prescription, it is necessary to prove the time of the petitioner’s possession or that of his predecessor in interest, as well as whether or not he is in possession of the property under title, and if so, the nature of such title.
STATEMENT OP THE CASE.
This is a proceeding instituted in the District Court of San Juan by Juan Figueroa y Campos, ito obtain a declaration of ownership of a rural estate, which case is pending before us on an appeal taken by the petitioner from the judgment rendered by (the aforesaid district court, which reads as follows:
“Porto Rico, March 9, 1903. Juan Figueroa y Campos, a resident of Carolina, of legal age, and a widower and landowner, filed a petition setting forth that he has been in possession and has been the owner for over six years of a rural estate situated in barrio ‘Carrasas’ within the municipal district^ of Carolina, consisting of 40 cuer-das of third-class land, equal to 15 hectares, 72 ares and 16 centares, bounded on the east by lands belonging to Gregorio Austú, Erutaño Soler and the brook known as ‘Naranjo;’ on the south by lands belonging to Gervasio Pirano; on the north, by lands belonging to Rosendo Rivera and the aforesaid brook; and on the west, by the brook known as ‘ Quebrada Grande de Macuto. ’ Said estate is valued at three hundred dollars and was acquired by pur chase from Isaías Mundo, José Rodríguez, Toribio Quiñones, and Victoriano Garcia, wbo are now dead, and it is not known whether they left any estate. As he had no title he instituted these proceedings and offered to produce the evidence of witnesses.
“After hearing the Department of Justice and citing the former owners, but not the occupants of the adjoining estates, the hearing-was had with the formalities prescribed by article 395 of the Mortgage Law.
“The petitioner, according to his statement, is a widower, and inasmuch as it has not been shown that the conjugal partnership had been liquidated, nor that the petitioner acquired the property after becoming a widower, the declaration of ownership applied for can not be made. A declaration of ownership in favor of the petitioner of the estate described in the first finding of fact hereof is denied. Thus it was decided and signed by the judges of the court, to which I certify. Juan Morera Martinez, Frank H. Richmond, José Tous. Soto. — Luis Méndez Vaz.”
From the foregoing judgment counsel for the petitioner took an appeal, Which was allowed for review and a., stay of proceedings. The record was forwarded to this Supreme Court, with citation of the parties, and the appellant having appeared, the appeal was conducted under the proper procedure. A day was set for the hearing, at which only the Fiscal of this Supreme Court was present, who opposed the. appeal.
Mr. Ginorio (Emigdio /S'.), for appellant.
Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.

Opinion:
Mr. Chibe Justice QuiñoNes,
after stating the foregoing facts, delivered the opinion of the court.
The findings of fact of the judgment appealed from are accepted.
Moreover, the witnesses Cristino Díaz y Mundo, Mariano Hernández y Hernández, and José Mederos Corujo, produced by the petitioner, declared that it was true and they knew of their own knowledge that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the rural estate referred to in these proceedings, he having acquired the same by purchase from Isaías Mundo, José Bodríguez, Toribio Quiñones and Victoriano G-arcía.
After considering the evidence offered by the petitioner Jnan Figueroa y Campos, and 'which reduces itself to the testimony of the 'three witnesses mentioned, the declarations of ownership applied for cannot be made, inasmuch as the witnesses have not established the period of time of petitioner's possession, nor that of his predecessors in interest, nor whether he possessed under title or not, and if so, the ' nature of said title, which requisites are necessary in order to prove the acquisition of ownership of an estate by ordinary prescription, namely, not less than thirty years.
In view of article 395 -of the Mortgage Law, Judicial Order of April 4, 1899, and such articles of the old Civil Code and sections of the one now in force, as are applicable to the case, we adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm the judgment appealed from, in so far as it denies a declaration of ownership in favor of the appellant of the estate described in the first finding of fact, and impose costs upon the ap- \ pellant.
Justices Hernández, Figueras, Sulzbacher and MacLeary concurred.