G.R. No. L-11209; January 20, 1919
MGR. JEREMIAS J. HARTY, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CIPRIANO MACABUHAY, ET AL., defendant-appellants.

FACTS:
Mgr. Jeremias J. Harty, the Metropolitan Archbishop of Manila, filed an action to recover a parcel of land in Taytay, Rizal, alleged to be owned by the parish church of Taytay. The defendants were in possession of various parts of the land, claiming ownership or rights derived from the municipality. The plaintiff’s title was based primarily on a possessory information (possessory title) recorded in 1896, which was procured by the church administrator. The defendants contested the validity of this possessory information, alleging it was obtained through undue influence and false testimony, and that the church was not in possession at the time. The case was tried twice in the Court of First Instance, with both trials resulting in judgments for the plaintiff. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court initially affirmed the lower court’s decision. However, upon a motion for reconsideration, the Court discovered a critical error: both parties had erroneously assumed that the possessory information covered all the land in dispute. A careful review revealed that the possessory information actually pertained only to specific portions (Lots 1 and 3) of the land as shown on a subsequently presented survey plan, and not to all the areas occupied by the various defendants.

ISSUE:
Whether the possessory information of 1896 is valid and sufficient to establish the plaintiff’s ownership over the entire parcel of land claimed in the complaint, and consequently, whether the defendants holding portions of that land should be ordered to restore possession to the plaintiff.

RULING:
The Supreme Court reversed its initial affirmance and modified the judgment of the lower court. The Court held:
1. The possessory information of 1896 was valid and effective to prove the church’s ownership, but only for the land actually described within it. The Court found that this description corresponded only to Lots 1 and 3 on the survey plan presented as evidence.
2. The plaintiff’s ownership was affirmed only with respect to Lot No. 1, which was occupied by defendants Leoncio Mercado, Leopoldo Araullo, Joaquin Esguerra, Miguel Esguerra, and Sotero de la Cruz. These defendants were ordered to surrender possession to the plaintiff.
3. The defendants occupying lands outside the scope of the possessory information (specifically, Silvino Alcantara, Alejandro Ramos, Francisco de la Cruz, Luis Javier 2.º, and Lucia Esguerra with her husband Adaucto Ocampo) were absolved from the complaint, as the plaintiff failed to prove ownership over the areas they held.
4. The claim against the property originally held by the deceased defendant Cipriano Macabuhay (in the possession of his widow, Faustina San Juan) was deemed not involved in the appeal due to procedural oversight in the lower court, but the evidence indicated his predecessors held the land under a claim of ownership long before 1896.
5. The judgment against the municipality of Taytay was affirmed concerning the property ordered restored to the plaintiff (Lot 1) and reversed concerning the property of the absolved defendants.