G.R. No. and Date: G.R. No. L-7954, August 27, 1915
Case Title: FELIPE DE LA SERNA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MATEA LIBRADILLA, ALEJANDRO BAILOSOS, and GALO BAILOSOS, defendants-appellants.

FACTS:
The plaintiff, Felipe de la Serna, filed an action to recover possession of a parcel of land, alleging ownership through inheritance from his parents and continuous possession for about forty years. He claimed that the defendants interfered with his possession on September 17, 1908. The defendants, Matea Libradilla, Alejandro Bailosos, and Galo Bailosos, asserted ownership of the same land through inheritance from their parents, who they claimed had been in possession since 1886. During trial, the defendants offered as evidence a possessory information document dated February 1895 to support their claim. The trial court, presided by Judge George N. Hurd, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring him the owner and ordering the defendants to restore possession, pay damages of 80 centavos, and bear the costs. The defendants appealed, contesting the sufficiency of evidence and the exclusion of their possessory information document.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the evidence sufficiently established the plaintiff’s ownership and possession of the land.
2. Whether the trial court erred in excluding the defendants’ possessory information document from evidence.

RULING:
1. On ownership and possession: The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff was the owner of the land, having inherited it from his father and possessed it for nearly forty years. The evidence preponderated in favor of the plaintiff’s claim.
2. On admissibility of the possessory information: The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s exclusion of the document on two grounds:
– First, the description of the land in the possessory information did not include the land in dispute.
– Second, even if it did, the possessory information was not registered in the registry of property and thus could not affect the rights of innocent third parties, such as the plaintiff.
The Court noted that the defendants’ long inaction in asserting claim over the landnearly fourteen years from the date of the possessory information until the suitundermined their contention that the document covered the disputed property.

The Supreme Court affirmed the portion of the trial court’s judgment enjoining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession, with costs against the appellants.