G.R. No. 4003
FELICIANO RUPEREZ, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BUENAVENTURA DIMAGUILA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
September 29, 1908

FACTS: Plaintiff Feliciano Ruperez filed a complaint seeking the recovery and ratification of two parcels of land, alleging that they belonged to him but were unlawfully possessed by the defendants since May 1904. It was undisputed that Ruperez had previously owned several parcels, selling seven of them to Mariano Buenaventura in 1892. These seven parcels were inherited by Emilio Buenaventura, who then sold them to the defendants in June 1903.

The present dispute concerned two other parcels of land owned by Ruperez, which adjoined three of the seven parcels previously sold. The defendants admitted that these two parcels were not included in the original sale but claimed that Ruperez voluntarily delivered them during a survey in 1904. This alleged delivery was purportedly either to compensate for a shortage in area of the previously sold land or as compensation for land belonging to a third party (Eugenio Mistica) that was improperly included in the plaintiff’s title deeds.

To support their claim of assignment, the defendants presented a survey plan (Exhibit 3) showing the disputed land as part of one of the originally sold parcels, and the testimony of Sisenando Joya, a surveyor’s assistant, who stated that Ruperez indicated boundaries that included the disputed property. However, the plaintiff maintained he only pointed out the boundaries of the seven parcels originally sold, not the two distinct disputed parcels. The trial court found the defendants’ evidence insufficient to prove the alleged assignment.

On appeal, the defendants also contested Ruperez’s ownership of the disputed parcels, arguing his title deeds did not accurately describe the land in litigation.

ISSUE: 1. Did the defendants acquire ownership of the two disputed parcels of land through an alleged voluntary assignment or transfer from the plaintiff?
2. Did the plaintiff sufficiently prove his right of ownership over the disputed parcels?

RULING: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

1. The Court held that the defendants failed to prove the alleged assignment or transfer of the two disputed parcels. The evidence presented, including the survey plan and the testimony of the surveyor’s assistant, was deemed insufficient. The plaintiff’s testimony indicated he only pointed out the boundaries of the seven parcels originally sold, and there was no evidence that he consented to the inclusion of the two disputed parcels in the survey or the plan. The surveyor’s assistant’s testimony was found to be of little value as he was not privy to conversations between the parties and could not confirm the boundaries or area.

2. Regarding the plaintiff’s ownership, the Court noted that the defendants had admitted at trial that the plaintiff owned the said lands until 1904. This admission, coupled with the defendants’ failure to prove the alleged subsequent transfer, prevented them from now denying the plaintiff’s right of ownership. Therefore, the plaintiff’s ownership was established, and since no valid transfer was proven, he retained title to the land.

The judgment appealed from was affirmed, with costs against the appellants.