G.R. No. L-5797, January 13, 1911
MARCELO DE LA CRUZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. NICOLAS NIÑO, ET AL., defendants-appellees. SANTOS JARAPAN, intervener-appellant.

FACTS

Marcelo de la Cruz filed a complaint to recover possession of 29 parcels of land in Ilocos Norte, alleging that the defendants (Nicolas Niño, Eulalio Vicente, and Nemesio Vicente) had been unlawfully detaining and cultivating half of these properties for nearly two years. The defendants claimed they rightfully owned half of the lands as heirs of Feliciano Vicente, who, together with de la Cruz, had purchased the properties in partnership. They presented a private partition instrument (“Exhibit C”) dated March 18, 1897, which divided the lands equally between de la Cruz and Feliciano Vicente. De la Cruz acknowledged this instrument and admitted the partnership in his testimony. Meanwhile, Santos Jarapan intervened, claiming ownership of all the lands (except three parcels) since 1871, alleging he had acquired them under just title but lost possession due to circumstances beyond his control.

ISSUE

1. Whether Marcelo de la Cruz is entitled to recover possession of all the lands from the defendants.
2. Whether Santos Jarapan has a superior right of ownership over the disputed properties.

RULING

1. No, Marcelo de la Cruz is not entitled to recover possession of all the lands. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision absolving the defendants. The Court found that the private partition instrument (“Exhibit C”) was legally acknowledged by de la Cruz and proved that the lands were co-owned by de la Cruz and Feliciano Vicente. Under Article 1225 of the Civil Code, a private instrument, when legally acknowledged, has the same force as a public instrument between the parties and their legal representatives. The defendants, as heirs of Feliciano Vicente, rightfully owned half of the properties. De la Cruz’s documentary titles (a public instrument and a possessory information title) solely in his name did not negate the proven co-ownership and partition.

2. No, Santos Jarapan failed to establish ownership. The Court held that Jarapan did not sufficiently prove his ownership or the identity of the properties he claimed. His exhibited documents lacked precise descriptions of the lands’ location, area, and boundaries. Since de la Cruz and the defendants’ ownership was satisfactorily established, Jarapan, as a third-party claimant, could not assert a better right without clear evidence.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the defendants, with costs equally shared by de la Cruz and Jarapan.