385

VOL. 12, JANUARY 5, 1909. 385

Elumbaring vs. Elumbaring.

[No. 4000. January 5, 1909.] JOHNSON, J.:

On the 11th day of March, 1907, the plaintiff commenced

ANDRES ELUMBARING, plaintiff and appellant, vs. an action against the defendant for the purpose of
HERMOGENES ELUMBARING, defendant and appellee. recovering the possession of a certain parcel of land more
particularly described in paragraph two of the said
1. REALTY; DEED; PRIVATE DOCUMENT.·Plaintiff alleged complaint, situated in the sitio denominated Sulangon, in
that he purchased a certain tract of land in 1896, and in the municipality of Dapitan in the Moro Province, and for
support of his contention presented a certified copy of a deed damages for the illegal detention of the same by the
to himself, executed by the vendor before a justice of the defendant.
peace: Held, That, under the royal decree of May 29, 1885, The plaintiff alleged that he had purchased the said
articles 3 and 9, justices of the peace were not expressly parcel of land on the 3d of September, 1896; that about two-
authorized to take acknowledgments of such an instrument, thirds of said land was devoted to the cultivation of rice
which did not thereby become a public document. and that the rest was devoted to the cultivation of fruit
trees; that on or about the year 1900, he had constructed a
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ADMISSIBILITY.·An instrument so executed house upon said land; that said land produced annually
is a private document, which is effective as between the fifteen piculs de copra and one hundred cavanes de palay;
parties themselves and also as to third persons having no that the actual price of copra is P9.50 a picul y el de palay á
better title, and should have been admitted in evidence for P3 el caván; that the defendant had on or about August
the purpose of showing rights and relations of the parties. 1905, by force and intimidation, dispossessed the plaintiff
(Fabian vs. Smith, Bell & Co., 8 Phil. Rep., 496; Boncan vs. of said parcel of land; that during the period which the
Smith, Bell & Co., 9 Phil. Rep., 109.) defendant had occupied the said land he had caused the
plaintiff damages in the sum of P663.75.
3. ID.; TAX RECEIPTS AND DECLARATIONS AS On the 14th day of March, 1907, the defendant
EVIDENCE OF TITLE; GOOD FAITH.·Neither tax answered the said' complaint by·
receipts nor declarations of ownership, made for the purpose
of taxation, when not supported by other effective proof, are (a) A general denial; and
evidence of the right of possession of realty (Casimiro vs. (b) He alleged as a special defense that the land, which
Fernandez, 9 Phil. Rep., 562; Evangelista vs. Tabayuyong, 7 he occupied and was cultivating, was land which
Phil. Rep., 607) ; but when the party claiming title presents had belonged to his father and that his father had
a deed executed and delivered to him by the former owner, left the same to him by testament, and that the
the receipts and declarations constitute some proof showing plaintiff had no interest in the mid land whatever.
the good faith on the part of the person occupying and
retaining possession of the property. After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial, the
lower court decided that the plaintiff had not shown that
APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of he was the owner of said land, and therefore dismissed the
Dapitan. Avanceña, J. action with costs to the plaintiff.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. From this decision of the lower court the plaintiff
Perfecto J. Salas, for appellant. appealed and made the following assignments of error:
No appearance for appellee.
 "1. The court erred in refusing the admission of the de Mayo, 1885. (See Appendix (a), p. 210, Code of Civil
document, Exhibit A, as a public instrument, Procedure, old code.)
Article 3 of said decree is as follows:
386 "Justices of the peace, and, in their absence, the
gobernadorcillos, shall perform the duties of such offices
before
386 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Elumbaring vs. Elumbaring. 387

"2. The court erred in refusing the admission of the VOL. 12, JANUARY 5, 1909. 387
stubbooks and the duplicate of the affidavit, Elumbaring vs. Elumbaring.
Exhibits B and C, on account of the mere fact that
these documents say Banonong and the complaint
a testigo de asistencia of legal age, who is in the enjoyment
says Sulangon.
of all his civil rights and who can read and write correctly."
"3. The court erred in rendering its decision on the Article 9 of said decree is as follows:
ground that there was no evidence of the fact that "In the places where no escribanos reales or notaries
Timoteo Carreon was the owner of this land at the public may exist, and it is impracticable to appoint ad
time he sold it to the plaintiff. interim officials, as provided in the preceding article, they
"4. The court erred in resting its decision on the shall be substituted in the exercise of the judicial authority
allegation that, in an action for eviction, the by testigos de asistencia, in accordance with the laws and
plaintiff must not base his claim upon the provisions now in force."
insufficiency of the title of the defendant but on the The contention of the defendant is that article 9 of said
validity of his own title." decree permits a justice of the peace, assisted by witnesses,
to perform the duties of a notary public when there are no
During the trial of the cause it was clearly proved that the notaries public or clerks of courts in the district. A -careful
plaintiff had been in the possession of the land in question reading of said decree, however, will show clearly that this
at least from on or about the 3d day of September, 1896 to contention of the appellant is not tenable. Articles 1, 2, 3, 4
1903 or 1904, and that on or about the latter date the and 5 of said decree relate to justices of the peace and their
defendant had forcibly taken possession of the same. duties, together with the gobernadorcillos, in relation to
The plaintiff attempted to show that upon the 3d day of the duties of the judges of the Courts of First Instance,
September, 1896, he had purchased the land in question during the absence or inability of said judge.
from one Timoteo Carreon and had actually delivered to Articles 6, 7, 8 and 9 of said decree relate to the clerks of
the said vendor a carabao and some rice in payment the Courts of First Instance and notaries public and
therefor. To support this claim the plaintiff offered in persons who may be substituted for them in their absence
evidence a certified copy of a deed or conveyance of the said and before others are appointed. The phrase, therefore,
land, executed and delivered by the said Carreon before the "they shall be substituted in the exercise of the judicial
justice of the peace of the pueblo of Dapitan (Exhibit A). authority" has no relation whatever to the substitution of a
The defendant objected to the admission of this document justice of the peace in the place of a notary public or of a
in evidence upon the ground that the same had not been clerk of the Court of First Instance, but refers to the
duly identified. The lower court sustained the objection. substitution of witnesses of assistance f or notaries public
The appellant assigns this ruling as one of the errors and clerks of Courts of First Instance during the absence of
committed by the lower court. the latter and before the appointment of other notaries
To demonstrate that the lower court committed an error public and clerks of the courts.
in rejecting this document, the appellant in this court cites Courts of justices of the peace are courts of special and
articles 3 and 9 of the Real Decreto del Rey de España de 29 limited jurisdiction and have no authority except that
expressly imposed by law. Upon this question the error in not admitting the tax receipts which he offered in
jurisprudence of Spain and of the United States is the evidence. Tax receipts are no evidence of the right of
same. Justices of the peace were not expressly authorized ownership nor of the right of possession of land.
by law to take the acknowledgment of documents of this
389
388

VOL. 12, JANUARY 5, 1909. 389

388 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Elumbaring vs. Elumbaring.
Elumbaring vs. Elumbaring.
The payment of taxes on property does not alone constitute
class. The mere fact that the said justice did take the sufficient. evidence of title. (Casimiro vs. Fernandez, 9 Phil.
acknowledgment of the document in question did not have Rep., 562.)
the effect of making it a public document. Therefore article Tax receipts are no evidence of title to land unsupported
1216 of the Civil Code does not apply to it. The fact by other proper proof. (Evangelista vs. Tabayuyong, 7 Phil.
remains, however, that the said document was actually Rep., 607.)
made and signed by the parties to it, and it was recorded in The plaintiff during the trial offered in evidence the
the records of the justice of the peace and is, therefore, a declaration of ownership made for the purpose of taxation
private document, and as such is binding upon the parties. and presented it to the assessing authorities of the pueblo
It should have been admitted in evidence for the purpose of of Dapitan. This declaration was also rejected by the lower
showing the rights and relations of the parties under and court and was not admitted in evidence. It appears that by
by virtue of its terms. virtue of this declaration the land in question was entered
Section 299 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions upon the municipal tax books as the land of the plaintiff.
provides that public records kept in the Philippine Islands Said declaration, however, can in no way serve for the
of private writings are public writings, and that a copy of purpose of proving that the plaintiff was the owner of the
the same, duly certified to be true, should be admissible in land; nevertheless, in view of the fact that the plaintiff had
evidence the same as the original writing. In the present a deed of purchase of said land executed and delivered to
case the copy offered in evidence by the plaintiff was him by the former owner, Timoteo Carreon, the tax receipts
certified to be a true copy of the record of the justice of the and said declaration constitute some proof, 'Showing the
peace. good faith of the plaintiff in occupying and retaining the
The defendant admitted during the trial that the possession of the land in question.
plaintiff had a document executed and delivered by the said The said contract between Timoteo Carreon and the
Timoteo Carreon, representing the sale of the land in plaintiff, even as a private document, is effective between
question, but alleged that the document was a deed of sale them and is good as to a third person not having better
executed and delivered by Timoteo Carreon to his father. evidence of title to said land. (Fabian vs. Smith, Bell & Co.,
The defendant claims that his father Carlos Elumbaring, 8 Phil. Rep., 496; Boncan vs. Smith, Bell & Co., 9 Phil.
had purchased the land in question from Timoteo Carreon, Rep., 109.)
but admitted that he had no written evidence of that fact. The plaintiff, in an action of ejectment to recover the
This contention of the defendant is not only discredited by possession of land, claiming to be the owner thereof, can
the document which the plaintiff offered in evidence, but not recover such possession on the theory that the one in
also by the fact that Carlos Elumbaring permitted the possession has no title to the land. His right to recovery
plaintiff to occupy the land in question and to pay the taxes depends upon his-own title rather than the weakness of the
upon the same, from September, 1896, until the time of his title of the plaintiff. (Compañía General de Tabacos vs.
death in 1903, without objection, so far as the record Topiño, 4 Phil. Rep., 33)
shows. Without passing upon the question of the ownership of
The plaintiff contends that the lower court committed an the plaintiff and confining our decision to the mere
question of his right os possession of said land as against ordered.
the defendant, we are of the opinion and so hold;
391
First, That the plaintiff had been in the quiet, peaeable

390
VOL. 12, JANUARY 5, 1909. 391
Lubrico vs. Arbado.
390 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Elumbaring vs. Elumbaring.

and uninterrupted enjoyment of the possession of the land

in question, under and by virtue of the contract of sale
between himself and Timoteo Carreon from the 3d of
September, 1896, up to the time when he was dispossessed © Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.
by the defendant, probably in the month of August, 1904.
Second. That the defendant showed no evidence of his
right to possess the land further than his actual, manual
possession of the same. Under these facts had the action
been brought within the period of one year in the court of
the justice of the peace, the plaintiff would clearly be
entitled to the recovery of the possession of the land in
question. The period of prescription fixed by law not having
yet expired, certainly the plaintiff could not lose his right to
recover the possession of the land for the simple reason
that he did not bring his action in the court of the justice of
the peace within a year after he had actually been forcible
ejected by intimidation or fraud from the land.
The plaintiff in his complaint in the court below laid a
proper foundation for the claim of damages against the
defendant, but failed during the trial to present evidence
sufficient upon which a judgment for damages could be
based. Therefore we make no finding as to the claim for
damages made by the plaintiff.
For the reasons above stated we are of the opinion and
so hold that the judgment of the lower court should be
reversed and that judgment should be entered declaring
that the plaintiff is entitled to the immediate possession of
the land in question, and that a writ of possession should
be issued for the purpose of putting the plaintiff into
possession of said property. So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, JJ.,

concur.
Willard, J., concurs in the result.

Judgment reversed; new judgment and writ of possession