GR 11353; (September, 1917) (Digest)
G.R. No. 11353 ; September 21, 1917
AURELIO ASOMBRA, plaintiff-appellant, vs. BENITA DORADO and FELIX GESMUNDO, defendants-appellees.
FACTS:
The plaintiff, Aurelio Asombra, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Laguna seeking a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants, Benita Dorado and Felix Gesmundo, from interfering with his possession of a parcel of land and from reaping its crops. The defendants, in their answer, claimed ownership and lawful possession of the same land for over twenty years, thereby converting the action into one for recovery of title. After trial, the lower court ruled in favor of the defendants, declaring them the owners and dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff appealed, assigning errors in the admission of evidence and the court’s findings.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting certain exhibits (Exhibits 1 and 2) into evidence.
2. Whether the trial court erred in declaring the defendants as the owners of the land and in refusing to issue the perpetual injunction.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.
1. On the admissibility of evidence: The Court found no error in the admission of Exhibit 1, as it was admitted without objection in the trial court and was relevant to the defendants’ claim. Exhibit 2, a certified copy of a prior criminal case record from the justice of the peace, was properly authenticated under the official seal and was therefore admissible. That prior case had concluded that the defendants were the owners of the land and not criminally liable for their acts thereon.
2. On ownership and the remedy of injunction: After reviewing the evidence, which included conflicting claims of inheritance and tax declarations from both parties, and giving due weight to the trial judge’s assessment of witness credibility as required by Act No. 1596 , the Supreme Court held that the preponderance of evidence supported the defendants’ ownership. Consequently, the injunction was properly denied. The Court took the opportunity to reiterate that an injunction is not a proper remedy to take possession of property from one party and deliver it to another; summary actions for possession are the appropriate legal recourse for that purpose.
Arellano, C.J., Johnson, Araullo, Street, and Malcolm, JJ., concur.
This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.