Asombra v. Dorado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Aurelio Asombra commenced an action against Benita Dorado and Felix Gesmundo seeking a perpetual injunction to prohibit the defendants from interfering with his possession of a parcel of land. The plaintiff alleged ownership and continuous molestation by the defendants, who were reaping the crops and fruits of the land illegally. Procedural History: The defendants, in their answer, claimed ownership and lawful possession of the land for twenty years or more. The Court of First Instance of Laguna, after hearing the evidence, concluded that the defendants were the owners of the land, dismissed the complaint, and absolved the defendants. The plaintiff appealed. The Petition: The plaintiff appealed the decision of the lower court, alleging errors in the admission of Exhibits 1 and 2, and in declaring the defendants as owners and refusing to issue the perpetual injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in admitting Exhibit 1. Whether the lower court erred in admitting Exhibit 2. Whether the lower court erred in declaring the defendants as owners of the parcel of land and in refusing to issue the perpetual injunction.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. The defendants are declared owners of the parcel of land in question, and the complaint is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admission of Exhibit 1: The lower court did not err in admitting Exhibit 1. The record shows that said exhibit was admitted without objection in the lower court. The appellant, not having raised the question in the court below, and having raised it for the first time on appeal, cannot now be heard to complain. Furthermore, the exhibit was admissible as it tended to prove the allegations of the defendants in their answer. On the admission of Exhibit 2: The lower court did not err in admitting Exhibit 2. The objection presented in the court below was that the document had not been properly certified. Exhibit 2 was a certified copy of an action in the court of the justice of the peace. The justice of the peace who heard the action certified under his seal that the copy presented was in accordance with his record. The certificate made by the justice of the peace under his seal was sufficient to establish its admissibility upon the ground alleged by the appellant. Exhibit 2 showed that a prior criminal action had been commenced against the defendants for alleged illegal acts on the land, and the justice of the peace had concluded that the defendants were the owners and thus not criminally responsible. On the ownership of the land and the refusal of the injunction: The lower court did not err in declaring the defendants as owners and refusing the injunction. The court refused the injunction because the proof showed that the land belonged to the defendants. Both parties presented proof of ownership, claiming the land by inheritance and having declared it for taxation. Considering the evidence introduced by both parties, the conclusion of the judge who saw and heard the witnesses, and the requirement under Act No. 1596 to consider the findings of the lower court as to the preponderance of proof, the Supreme Court found a preponderance of proof supporting the conclusion that the defendants were the owners of the parcel of land in question.
Main Doctrine
An injunction is not the proper remedy to recover possession of real property; the law provides other adequate, speedy, and summary proceedings for that purpose.