FACTS:
On March 18, 1908, in G.R. No. L-4233, EXEQUIEL DELGADO (plaintiff-appellant) filed a complaint seeking a permanent injunction to prevent MANUEL RIESGO, ET AL. (defendants-appellees) from attaching a tract of land. Exequiel alleged that the land was his property. The defendants denied Exequiel’s claim of ownership, asserting that the land belonged to Francisco Delgado, and they were lawfully proceeding to levy an attachment upon it in pursuance of a writ of execution on a judgment debt against Francisco Delgado (in favor of Warner Barnes & Co.).

It was admitted that Exequiel was the owner of the land in 1900. However, since that time, Francisco Delgado, Exequiel’s cousin, had been in possession of the land, cultivating it, paying taxes, and entering it in his own name on the land assessment records, all with Exequiel’s knowledge. Witnesses also testified that Exequiel had stated on one occasion that he had given the land as a wedding present to Francisco in 1900 when Francisco married Exequiel’s sister, and on another occasion, he stated that Francisco was the owner. Exequiel, while testifying that Francisco was merely his “man in charge” and that he did not authorize Francisco to declare the land in his own name, did not deny the witnesses’ statements about the gift. The trial court found that Exequiel failed to establish his claim of ownership.

ISSUE:
Did the plaintiff-appellant sufficiently establish his claim of ownership over the land to justify the issuance of a permanent injunction against the defendants-appellees?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding that Exequiel Delgado failed to sustain his allegation of ownership by a preponderance of evidence. The presumption that Exequiel, having been the owner in 1900, continued to own it was rebutted by: (1) the delivery of the land to Francisco Delgado, (2) Francisco’s occupation for a number of years under a claim of ownership, and (3) Exequiel’s own admissions that he had given the land to Francisco and that Francisco was the owner.

The Court held that the evidence regarding Exequiel’s statements about the gift, though suggested to be not the best evidence, was properly admitted and considered by the trial court because no objection was made to its admission. Furthermore, evidence of Francisco’s tax payments and entry of the property in his own name in the land assessment records, while not conclusive proof of ownership, was competent and material as it tended to shed light on the nature of Francisco’s claim of possession with Exequiel’s knowledge and tacit consent. Therefore, Exequiel’s prayer for a permanent injunction was properly denied.