Cea V.

Villanueva (1911)
FACTS:
Defendant Villanueva began an action against the plaintiff to foreclose a mortgage which he held
upon various parcels of real estate belonging to the plaintiff, and prosecuted the same to final
judgment. After waiting the proper time for the plaintiff to pay the indebtedness upon which the
mortgage was based, and he not having made such payment, said parcels of land, under the terms
of said judgment, were offered for public sale and were sold to said Villanueva at public auction
on the 3d day of September, 1906, he being the highest bidder at said sale.
the said defendant, through the activities of the sheriff, entered into possession of the property,
including one of the pieces of land called parcel No. 2 the said defendant, through the activities
of the sheriff, entered into possession of the property, including one of the pieces of land called
parcel No. 2

the sheriff informed the defendants that, in the event that the court should determine that said
house was not property embraced within the mortgage and legally conveyed under the mortgage
sale, they, the defendants, must not only deliver possession but also pay to the plaintiff a proper
sum for its occupancy
During the month of December the property described in the mortgage, including parcel No. 2 in
question was again sold at public sale and again purchased by the defendant Villanueva. Prior
to this time, however, and on the night of the 3d of October, 1906, the house located on parcel
No. 2 was destroyed by fife. The evidence does not disclose in what manner the fire
originated or through whose fault or negligence, if of anyone, it occurred. Upon that question
the record is wholly silent.

HELD:
It appears that the description of the land upon which the house was located is included within
the description of parcel No. 2 in the mortgage referred to. The appellant in his complaint and
in his argument presents a description of the house and lot referred to somewhat different in
words from the description of parcel No. 2. This, however, causes no confusion, inasmuch as it
is quite clear that the description of parcel No. 2 fully includes the house and lot described by the
appellant.

, the record does not leave us in doubt. It having been found that the description contained in the
mortgage includes the house and lot in question, the resolution of the present question is easy

The defendant having entered into possession of the property lawfully, he was obligated to
exercise only reasonable diligence and care in the management of the property.

It appearing from the nature of the relation of the defendant to the property that he was not
a holder in bad faith nor a usurper, he is responsible only for those losses which are shown to
have been caused by his negligence. No negligence having been shown in this case, the
complaint was properly dismissed upon the merits.