G.R. No. L‑1326
November 10, 1906

FACTS
– The plaintiff‑appellant, Felix Fanlo Aznar, sued the defendant‑appellee, Rafael Rodriguez, claiming that a partnership between Rodriguez and a third person (Ballesteros) was dissolved on 21 June 1895.
– By the dissolution deed (recorded in the Registry of Property), the partnership’s assets were to be conveyed to Ballesteros, who in turn agreed to pay Rodriguez ₱2,000 after four years.
– After dissolution, Ballesteros mortgaged the property to Guimarans; Aznar later acquired Guimarans’ interest and, in 1899, obtained an absolute deed of conveyance from Ballesteros.
– Aznar filed a suit in the Court of Capiz to enforce payment of the ₱2,000, to rescind the contract, and to recover one‑half of the property, alleging that Rodriguez was in possession of the land and that such possession caused ₱5,000 in damages.
– The provost court rendered a judgment in favor of Rodriguez, placing him in possession of the contested portion.
– Aznar subsequently withdrew the allegation of wrongful possession. The lower trial court, finding that Rodriguez had never actually taken possession, entered judgment for the defendant. No bill of exceptions was filed; the matter was later brought before this Court on a petition to compel the lower judge to sign a bill of exceptions.

ISSUE
Whether the findings of fact and the pleadings in the trial court justified the judgment in favor of the defendant, given (1) the plaintiff’s withdrawal of the claim of wrongful possession, and (2) the lack of civil jurisdiction of the provost court that originally awarded Rodriguez ownership of half the partnership property.

RULING
– The Court held that the plaintiff’s claim rested on the alleged wrongful possession of the property by Rodriguez. Since Aznar failed to prove possession and expressly withdrew that allegation, the claim could not succeed.
– The provost court’s judgment could not be upheld because provost courts ordinarily possess only criminal jurisdiction; no record showed that the Capiz provost court had been validly vested with civil authority to divide partnership assets.
– Accordingly, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed not on the basis of the provost court’s decision but on the ground that Rodriguez never possessed the property at the time the action was filed, rendering the plaintiff’s claim untenable.
– The decision is entered without prejudice to the parties’ right to litigate their respective interests in the property in a proper forum. No costs are awarded to either side. The case is remanded to the lower court for further appropriate proceedings after twenty days, with final entry of judgment ten days thereafter.