CASE NAME: City of Manila v.

Del Rosario AUTHOR: SULLANO

GR: Notes: Really short case. No need for ER.
TOPIC: Admission by Privies
PONENTE: J. Mapa
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:
where one derives title to real property from another, the declaration, act or omission of the latter, in relation to the property, is evidence
against the former only when made while the latter hold title.

Emergency Recit

FACTS:
 This is an action for recovery of two lots which are presently occupied by the defendant (located in Calles Clavel and Barcelona,
district in Tondo)
 The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff; because of this the defendant asked the SC to dismiss the case.
 The plaintiff presented documentary and oral evidence to bolster its claims over the land.
o 1st witness said he didn’t know who owned the land.
o 2nd witness said it belonged to the central government and not the city
o 3rd witness said it belonged to the city. But since he received this info from the older residents, it was considered as
hearsay.
o 4th witness said that the land was owned by her brother (Cipriano), which in turn was sold to the brother of the
defendant (Lorenzo), which was eventually sold to the defendant himself (Jacinto)
o 5th witness (Lorenzo) said that he bought the land from Cipriano and sold it to his brother. (He was also made to
testify to the authenticity of certain dpcuments)
 This is the doctrine of the case: Whatever statements Lorenzo might have made are not binding upon
the defendant because “where one derives title to real property from another, the declaration, act or
omission of the latter, in relation to the property, is evidence against the former only when made
while the latter hold title.
o Plaintiff also showed a map of Manila, but since it couldn’t be verifies as to who made it, and was only introduced to
show the court where the land was located, it was pretty much useless.
 Basically, the witnesses and evidence of the plaintiff favored the position of the defendant instead.
ISSUE(S): W/N
 The defendant is entitled to owner ship of the land.

HELD: Yes. The case was dismissed

RATIO:
 Evidence presented by the plaintiff does ot prove uts claim of title to the land in question.
 Neither the testimony of the witnesses presented by the plaintiff nor the documentary evidence introduced show that the City
of Manila was the owner of the land. .
 Plaintiff, also admitted that the defendant’s possession of the Calle Clavel land was recorded since March 1901, and he was in
possession since February 1893
DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):