Arnedo Cruz vs. de Leon

Arnedo Cruz vs.
De Leon
FACTS: On August 12, 1907, Gregoria Arnedo Cruz, in her own behalf and in the name
and representation of her sisters, Maria Concepcion, Manuela and Juana, all surnamed
Arnedo Cruz, made written applications to the Court of Land Registration for the
registration of two parcels of land, situated in the barrio of San Miguel, pueblo of
Calumpit, Province of Bulacan, of which they claimed to be absolute owners, and
described as follows:
Parcel A, bounded on the north by land of Ramon delos Reyes; on the east by that of
Victoria A. Cruz; on the south by a road from the barrio of San Miguel; and on the west
by the land of Eugenia de Jesus. It has an area of 222,871.23 square meters.
Parcel B, bounded on the north by the road from the barrio of San Miguel; on the east
by the land of Victoria A. Cruz; on the south by the Rio Grande de Calumpit; and on the
west by the land of Eugenia de Jesus. It has an area of 14,130.67 square meters. The
estate described, composed two parcel of land, was appraised, for the purpose of the
last assessment, together with the buildings thereon constructed.
Petioners’ allegations:
1.That there was no encumbrance on the property, nor any person entitled to any right
or share therein, according to their best knowledge and belief
2.That they acquired this land by inheritance from their deceased parents, Jose Arnedo
Cruz and Maria Santos Espiritu
3.and that, in the unlikely event of its being impossible to grant their application in
accordance with the Land Registration Act, they would rely upon the benefits of chapter
6 of Act No. 926, inasmuch as they had been in possession of the said lands for more
than fifty years, during which period they were used for the cultivation of rice, being
surrounded by pilapiles, or earthen dikes.
LC:
On February 20, 1908, the court, by an order of the same date and after the issuance of
a decree of general default, decreed the adjudication and registration of the two parcels
of land in the names of the sisters Gregoria Arnedo Cruz, Manuel Arnedo Cruz, Maria
Concepcion Arnedo Cruz and Juana Arnedo Cruz.
A written petition on December 15, 1908 stated to the court that Toribio de Leon,
Agustin Catanghal, Fulgencio Clarin, Clara de Leon, Antonio Mundo, Julian de Leon,
Joaquin de Leon, Domingo de Leon, Bernardo Reyes, Ambrosio Carlos, Pedro de Leon,
Florentina Ramos, Monica Laderas, Juana Martinez, Francisco de Torres, and Mariano
Valladar were the owners and possessors of certain building lots which formed a part of
the two parcels of land concerned in this case.
Opponents alleged that their respective lots were within the perimeter of the parcels of
land registered in the name of the applicants by the decree of February 20, 1908, and
therefore asked for the annulment of the same, in so far as it affected their above-
described respective lots, and that the costs be assessed against the applicants.
They therefore petitioned that the previous judgment on February 20 be reconsidered

and reversed, after due procedure, in so far as their respective lots were concerned.
ISSUE: WON it is proper to register (in the Court of Land Registration) the
aforementioned two parcels of land with the inclusion of the lots that are the subject of
the oppositions
RULING: Yes, it is proper to register the two parcels of land, but with the exclusion of
the lots or portions of land owned by the opponents.
It does not show by decisive and conclusive proof, that the lots of the opponents are
comprised within the lands of the applicants, and that the opponents are and have been
in possession of the lots in question, unduly or precariously, by tolerance of their
legitimate owners, for a less time than the required by statute for prescription, and
without any good right.
It is unquestionable that the said four sisters are the owners and are in possession of
the two said parcels of land, used for the cultivation of rice and sugar cane and situated
in the barrio of San Miguel, of the pueblo of Calumpit Bulacan, yet they have not duly
established the fact that they are the owners of the portions now in the possession of
the opponents, and whether these lots are comprised within the perimeter and
boundaries of the two said parcels of land designated on the plan under the letters A
and B.
From the foregoing testimony (Santiago V. Cruz and Victoria Arneda Cruz)
• Santiago V. Cruz, an agent of Teodoro Tiongson, who was formerly a lessee of the
two parcels of land during three years prior to 1882, testified that, as such agent, he had
not collected any land rent for the lots, occupied by many houses, which were within the
land that formed the barrio called Frances; that the lands leased by Tiongson from the
appellants' mother were used for the cultivation of rice and sugar cane; that, at the
expiration of Tiongson's lease, the latter were taken over by Victoria Arnedo; and that
several tenants on shares lived in their house built on the leased lands.
• Victoria Arneda Cruz testified that she had leased the said two parcels of land, used
for the cultivation of rice and sugar cane; that in the barrio of Frances there were
houses, about fifteen or twenty in number, built on the lots which adjoined the lands of
Gregoria Arnedo Cruz, some of which lots are situated on the bank of the river; that in
the contract of lease executed by the witness and the applicants' mother, the said lots
are not included, for the land leased by the former only extended to the fences of the
said lots, and this she also had been told by Teodoro Tiongson, the preceding lessee,
who himself had been so informed by the owner of the lands, the applicants' mother;
that witness did not know whether the latter, during her lifetime, collected rent for the
said lots, witness, as lessee, did not collect such rent for them; that she did not believe
that these lots were comprised within the lands leased by her, and, finally, that some of
them, occupied by residents of that barrio, formed a part of the land owned by her,
adjacent to the lands of the applicants, while others were a part of the lands of the latter.
It is concluded that, in the successive lease of the said two parcels of land, there were
not included lots which appear to have been occupied by various residents of the
locality, apparently the opponents, and, inasmuch as the latter were long prior to 1882
in material possession of the lots which were occupied, without having made any
acknowledgment of the applicants' alleged ownership, nor of that of their predecessor in
interest; and, further, since there is no evidence to show how and in what manner the
opponents and their predecessors in interest began to occupy the lots in question and
that they entered upon the same through the tolerance of their alleged owners, and also
that the said lots formed a part of the two parcels of land sought to be registered, it
would be improper to hold that the disputed lots should be included in the registration.
As for all other aspects of the case, let it be borne in mind that by abandonment,
negligence or carelessness, owners provided with the most perfect titles may be
deprived by law, acquire the same by prescription. (Arts. 1930 and 1959, Civil Code.)
Civil possession, according to the article 430 of the same code, is the holding of a thing
of the enjoyment of a right, together with the intention of acquiring ownership of the
thing or right. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; and should
he be disturbed therein, he must be protected or possession must be restored to him by
the means established in laws of procedure. (art. 446, Civil Code.)
For reasons aforesaid, and with the modification specified, the judgment appealed from
is affirmed; but before completing the inscription and registration of the said parcels of
land in the name of the applicants, with the exclusion of the portions of land owned by
the opponents, a correct survey, which must be duly approved, shall be made of the
said properties, and a plan shall be drawn, for the purpose of the issuance of the proper
title in accordance with the law. No special finding is made as to the costs. So ordered.

Arnedo Cruz vs. de Leon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arnedo Cruz vs. de Leon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arnedo Cruz vs. de Leon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arnedo Cruz vs.

They therefore petitioned that the previous judgment on February 20 be reconsidered

You might also like