G.R. No. L‑3662
November 19, 1907

—

FACTS
– Plaintiffs: Isabel, Rosario, Trinidad, Concepción, Vicente, Generosa, Trinitario, Perpetua, and Victorina Salgado y Acuña, minor children of the late Generoso Salgado, represented by their mother Vicenta Acuña.
– Defendant: City of Manila.
– The Salgado heirs claimed ownership and possession of a parcel of land in Quiapo, Manila, which they had possessed since before 1865 through Vicente Salgado and later through his son Generoso Salgado, who died in 1881.
– Vicenta Acuña acted as administratrix of the land, receiving monthly rentals and leasing the whole parcel to a Chinese tenant, Dy Anco, for ₱25 per month.
– In July 1901 the City of Manila took possession of the land and continued to receive the rent from Dy Anco, who built a house on the site.
– Plaintiffs filed a possessory information proceeding (registered 24 May 1893) to recover the land and damages. The City asserted the parcel was part of a public street, but produced no proof of title or superior right.

The trial court found:
1. The Salgado heirs were the lawful owners and possessors of the land.
2. Vicenta Acuña was the administratrix who leased the land to Dy Anco for ₱25/month.
3. The City’s possession was illegal.

Judgment: Restitution of the land to the plaintiffs; payment of ₱1,425 (rent due up to 1 Oct 1906) plus ₱25 per month thereafter until restitution; costs of suit.

The City appealed.

—

ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in (1) finding that the Salgado heirs were the rightful owners and possessors of the land, (2) affirming the lease arrangement and amount of rent, and (3) ordering restitution of the parcel and payment of rentals despite the City’s claim of public‑street ownership.

—

RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision in full.

– The evidence (testimony of multiple witnesses on possession, administration, and lease) established the Salgado heirs’ ownership and continuous possession from before 1865 through 1901.
– The City failed to produce any proof of title or superior right; its allegation that the land formed part of a public street was unsupported.
– All the contested factual findings (possession by Vicente Salgado, administration by Vicenta Acuña, lease to Dy Anco at ₱25/month, date of illegal seizure) were upheld because they were corroborated by competent witnesses and not rebutted.

Consequently, the judgment ordering restitution of the land, payment of accrued rentals, and costs against the City of Manila was affirmed.

Costs: Charged to the appellant (City of Manila).