FACTS:
Alipia Dumlao, plaintiff-appellant, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte against Candido Pobre II, defendant-appellee, to recover possession of a 166 square meter tract of land, claiming ownership based on a deed from Maria Valenzuela dated 1901.

Candido Pobre II denied that the land he possessed was the same as that described by Alipia Dumlao, and further alleged that the land he possessed was his exclusive property, having been in occupation for many years.

Evidence presented showed that Maria Valenzuela sold or pledged the land to Candido Pobre II in 1902, and he had been in continuous possession since. Candido Pobre II had also won two previous judicial actions concerning the same land: one against Maria Valenzuela, and another against Alipia Dumlao’s sons. In the latter case, the court had already ruled that the same deed presented by Alipia Dumlao in the current action was never signed by Maria Valenzuela.

The Court of First Instance in this case made the same finding, ruling that the signature of Maria Valenzuela on the deed presented by Alipia Dumlao was “entirely different” from her testimony in court. The trial court consequently entered judgment in favor of Candido Pobre II. Alipia Dumlao appealed, challenging the sufficiency of Candido Pobre II’s answer and the lower court’s finding regarding the authenticity of the deed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether Candido Pobre II’s answer, which alleged exclusive ownership, constituted a sufficient denial of Alipia Dumlao’s claim of ownership, despite not containing a specific general or special denial.
2. Whether the lower court erred in finding that the deed presented by Alipia Dumlao, purportedly from Maria Valenzuela, was not genuinely signed by Maria Valenzuela, thereby affecting Alipia Dumlao’s claim of ownership and right to possession.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the judgment of the Court of First Instance in favor of Candido Pobre II, with costs against Alipia Dumlao.

1. The Court ruled that while the answer lacked a specific general or special denial, Candido Pobre II’s allegation that he was the “exclusive owner” of the land necessarily amounted to an implied denial that Alipia Dumlao was the owner. Thus, the answer was deemed sufficient.
2. The Court found no basis to overturn the lower court’s finding that the deed from Maria Valenzuela to Alipia Dumlao was not genuinely signed by Maria Valenzuela. The Supreme Court noted that Alipia Dumlao, as the appellant, failed to present Maria Valenzuela’s testimony signature for comparison, thereby precluding the Supreme Court from independently determining the genuineness of the signature on the deed. Without such evidence, the Court concluded that it could not say the evidence presented in the court below did not justify its finding. Consequently, Alipia Dumlao failed to prove her ownership and right to possess the land.