SEC.

31 (ADMISSION OF PRIVIES)
CITY OF MANILA vs. DEL ROSARIO

SUMMARY:
Properties in dispute are 2 lots located in Calles Clavel and Barcelona, district of Tondo, presently occupied by
Jacinto Del Rosario. The CFI of Manila ruled in favor of the City of Manila for possession of the said lots. Del
Rosario now appeals the CFI judgment contending that he is entitled to ownership and possession of the land,
and that it was error for the CFI to overrule his motion to dismiss. The SC reversed the CFI and held that the
oral and documentary evidence introduced by City of Manila do not prove its claim of title.
1. (Oral evidence) It appears that Lorenzo del Rosario acquired the land from Cipriano Roco and sold it to
his brother Jacinto del Rosario, defendant in this case.
2. (Documentary evidence) Lorenzo del Rosario’s offer to the City of Manila for the purchase of the
properties does not bind Jacinto Del Rosario. Lorenzo del Rosario signed the petition before he
acquired from Cipriano Roco the ownership of the land, the letter being signed after he had transferred
the land to Jacinto del Rosario, who took possession of the same and had it registered. If this is so,
whatever statements Lorenzo del Rosario might have made in the documents mentioned, they are not
binding upon Jacinto del Rosario, because, under section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure, "where
one derives title to real property from another, the declaration, act, or omission of the latter, in relation
to the property, is evidence against the former only when made while the latter holds the title."

FACTS:
The City of Manila filed an action to recover possession of 2 lots (located in calles Clavel and Barcelona) in
the City of Tondo which are occupied by Jacinto del Rosario since Feb 23, 1893. At the hearing, the City of
Manila introduced documentary and oral evidence:

ORAL EVIDENCE
 John Wilson testified that he did not know of his own knowledge if the land belonged to the city
 Eduardo Timoteo testified that Calles Clavel and Barcelona was formerly a part of plaza divisoria
which belonged to the Central Government (not the city) and that he did not know to whom it
belongs.
 Juan Villegas testified that the land in question was formerly included in the Gran Divisoria and
that all land included in it belonged to the city.
 Sotera Roco testified that a certain Lorenzo del Rosario paid 100 pesos to her brother for the
purpose of instituting a possessory information as to the property abutting on Calle Clavel.
 Modesto Reyes and Lorenzo del Rosario said nothing as to the ownership of the land. They
simply testified as o the authenticity of some of the documentary evidence presented by the City
of Manila.
1. Petition presented by Lorenzo del Rosario to the Mayor of Manila on Sept 26, 1891
2. Letter written by Lorezo del Rosario to the Municipal Board of Manila on Oct 9 1901.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE(apart from the 2 mentioned above)

 Map (this was not however presented at the SC and only in the CFI.)
 2 public instruments which show that Jacinto del Rosario was in possession of the land under a
good title and with the status of an owner.

Lorenzo del Rosario admitted the authenticity of both documents which contain an offer to the City of
Manila to purchase the land on Calle Clavel. He also admitted that he signed the first document under the
misapprehension that the land belonged to the city, but that he had been subsequently informed by the city
officials that the land does not belong to Manila but to Cipria Roco. He also said that he signed the second
document because the President of the Municipal Board advised him to do so in order to avoid litigation. His
testimony was not contradicted. The court ruled in favour of the City of Manila and awarded $2,500
damages.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the City of Manila was entitled to the ownership and possession of the land in question. --- NO
RULING:
Evidence introduced does not prove Manila’s claim of title to the land in question. Neither the testimony of the
witnesses nor the documentary evidence introduced show that the city of Manila is the owner of the land or
that it has a right to its possession. Some of the documents introduced, as well as the two public instruments
referred to as having been executed in 1900, tended to support the contentions of the defendant rather than
those of the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the plaintiff itself admits in the complaint that the defendant's possession of the land in Calle
Barcelona was recorded since March, 1901, and his possession of that in Calle Clavel since February, 1893.
This shows that the defendant had been in the adverse possession of the land.
 A possessory information recorded in the property register is prima facie evidence of the fact that
the person who instituted the proceedings holds the property as owner; and the presumption, under
article 448 of the Civil Code, is that his title is good unless the contrary is shown.