
    Ex Parte Filbrick.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
    No. 36.
    Decided October 12, 1903.
    Dominion- Title. — Public, Peaceable and Uninterrupted Possesion.— A judicial declaration of ownership cannot be made in proceedings therefor if the time during which the property has been in the possession of the previous owners does not appear, or that petitioner has acquired the property as owner by public, peaceable and uninterrupted possession.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
    In the appeal pending before us, taken by Charles F. Filbrick, who entered an appearance in this Supreme Court through his counsel, Juan Guzmán Benitez, this court is asked to reverse an order made by the District Court of San Juan, which literally reads:
    . “Porto Pico, March 20, 1903. Charles F. Filbrick, of legal age, a bachelor and property owner, filed a petition in this court, stating that he was the owner of a tract of land situated in barrio “Mucarabones”, within the municipal district of Toa-Alta, consisting of thirty-four cuerdas and one hundred and forty-six varas, equal to thirteen hectares, thirty-one ares, and twelve centares, bounded on the north by lands belonging to petitioner, on the south by the “Eucardia” brook and lands belonging to Dr. Leonhart, on the east by lands belonging to Pedro Dávila, Dr. Leonhart and John Bitter, and the west by lands belonging to Joaquín Andino and Martín Hernández; that he acquired said land by purchase of four cuerdas and two thousand and seven varas and three -hundred and ninety-one thousandths of a vara from Manuel Erazo, and twenty-nine cuerdas and two thousand and sixty-nine varas and one half of a «am from Martin Medina, about two months before, since which time he has been in quiet and peaceful possession of said property without any interruption by anybody, the value thereof being three hundred and forty dollars; and as he had no title of ownership recorded for the purposes of the Registry, he instituted these proceedings in conformity with the provisions of article 395 of the Mortgage Law.
    After hearing the representative of the Attorney-General an order was issued under date of January 2, 1903, directing that citation be made upon the persons from whom said property was acquired, and such as might have any property right therein, and the adjoining land owners and that the evidence proposed be taken within the period of sixty days, and that a summons be issued, by means of proclamations posted in public places and published three times in one of the papers having the largest circulation, to any unknown persons who might be prejudiced by the record sought.
    Said proclamation having been posted and published in three issues of the “Boletín Mercantil”, to wit, January 7, 8 and 9, 1903, and the aforesaid period of sixty days having elapsed without any claim having been presented, either during the said period or thereafter, in opposition to the title applied for, and the evidence proposed having been introduced and the Department of Justice having been cited, as well as the vendors Medina and Erazo, who testified to the facts above set forth, and the adjoining land owners having also been cited, as also two witnesses, residents of Bayamón, known to the clerk, who testified to the truth of aforesaid facts.
    The rules of procedure have been observed in the conduct of this proceeding. Inasmuch as the time during which the property in question had heen in the possession of the persons from whom the petitioner had acquired it does not appear, but only the fact of its having been bought by the latter two months before, the court is unable to determine whether there had been an acquisition of ownership by peaceful and uninterrupted possession as owner,, nor does acquisition by any of the other means established by law appear from the record.
    In view of articles 395 of the Mortgage Law, 1831, 1840, 1841 and 1842 of the Civil Code, and General Order of April 4, 1899, a declaration of ownership with respect to the property in question, does not lie. The above decision is concurred in and signed by a majority of the court, the presiding jndge dissenting, to which-1 certify — Juan Morera Martinez — Richmond—, José To us Soto — Luis Méndez Yaz”.
    
      Notice of this order having been served upon the said Charles F. Filbrick, he took an appeal therefrom, which was allowed, and the parties being cited, the record was sent up to this Supreme Court, where in due time the appellant appeared, and examined and returned the same as also the Fiscal by whom the appeal was opposed.
    A day was set for the hearing which took place on the 9th instant, when the Attorney-General presented such arguments-in support of his position as were deemed pertinent, the appellant having failed to appear.
    Mr. Juan de Güzmán Benitez, for appellant.
    Mr. del Toro, Fiscal of the Supreme Court.
   Opinion of the Court.

Accepting the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the decision appealed from is based, and in view of the legal provisions cited therein, we adjudge that we should affirm, and do affirm, the order made by the District Court of San Juan, March 20, 1903, with costs against appellant.

Chief Justice Quinones, and Justices Hernández, Sulzba-cher and MacLeary, concurred.

Mr. Justice Figueras did not sit at the hearing of this case.  