1) The defendant Pedro Amenos purchased land from Vicente Lukban who had possessed the land since 1881 and had obtained a possessory title over the land registered in 1894, making Amenos the prima facie owner.
2) The plaintiff argued the possessory title was insufficient to claim ownership, but the court found even without considering the possessory title valid, other evidence established Lukban's ownership in 1896 when he sold the land.
3) The plaintiff failed to overcome the prima facie evidence of Lukban's ownership through insufficient evidence from interested witnesses that conflicted with Lukban's prior statements and no testimony from other living heirs. The court upheld Amenos' ownership.
1) The defendant Pedro Amenos purchased land from Vicente Lukban who had possessed the land since 1881 and had obtained a possessory title over the land registered in 1894, making Amenos the prima facie owner.
2) The plaintiff argued the possessory title was insufficient to claim ownership, but the court found even without considering the possessory title valid, other evidence established Lukban's ownership in 1896 when he sold the land.
3) The plaintiff failed to overcome the prima facie evidence of Lukban's ownership through insufficient evidence from interested witnesses that conflicted with Lukban's prior statements and no testimony from other living heirs. The court upheld Amenos' ownership.
1) The defendant Pedro Amenos purchased land from Vicente Lukban who had possessed the land since 1881 and had obtained a possessory title over the land registered in 1894, making Amenos the prima facie owner.
2) The plaintiff argued the possessory title was insufficient to claim ownership, but the court found even without considering the possessory title valid, other evidence established Lukban's ownership in 1896 when he sold the land.
3) The plaintiff failed to overcome the prima facie evidence of Lukban's ownership through insufficient evidence from interested witnesses that conflicted with Lukban's prior statements and no testimony from other living heirs. The court upheld Amenos' ownership.
1) The defendant Pedro Amenos purchased land from Vicente Lukban who had possessed the land since 1881 and had obtained a possessory title over the land registered in 1894, making Amenos the prima facie owner.
2) The plaintiff argued the possessory title was insufficient to claim ownership, but the court found even without considering the possessory title valid, other evidence established Lukban's ownership in 1896 when he sold the land.
3) The plaintiff failed to overcome the prima facie evidence of Lukban's ownership through insufficient evidence from interested witnesses that conflicted with Lukban's prior statements and no testimony from other living heirs. The court upheld Amenos' ownership.
LAURENTE BALDOVINO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. PEDRO
AMENOS, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
Wm A. Kincaid, for appellant.
Manuel Garcia Gavieres, for appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. REALTY; PURCHASE AND SALE; TITLE. — Defendant purchased
land from one who had been in possession thereof and in whose name a possessory information covering the land had been duly recorded in the registry: Held, That these facts made the defendant prima facie owner of the land. 2. ID.; POSSESSORY INFORMATION TITLE; MORTGAGE LAW. — Article 34 of the Mortgage Law is not applicable to a possessory information not obtained in accordance with the provisions of the royal decree of February 13, 1894. 3. CONTRACT; RESCISSION. — In order to set aside a contract as having been made in violation of paragraph 2 of article 1459 of the Civil Code, where it is alleged that the contract was made by an agent through a third person, it is necessary that the evidence shall show some agreement between the agent and the third person to the effect that the latter should buy the property for the benefit of the former.
DECISION
WILLARD, J : p
The plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of Agustin Lukban de San