
    Ex Parte Berlanga.
    Appeal from the District Court of Humacao.
    No. 99.
    Decided March 18, 1904.
    ■Ownership — Written or Recordable Title. — Although article B95 of the Mortgage Law authorizes proceedings relating to the ownership of real property only in case of property holders who are without a written title of ownership, this should he understood as referring to persons who have no title of ownership, capable of being recorded in the Registry of Property.
    Id. — Private - Documents. — Property owners who can present only titles of ownership consisting of private documents, not recordable in any form in the Registry because lacking the legal conditions, are practically included in article 395 of the Mortgage Law, and may reeord their property by means of the judicial proceedings established therein.
    Id. — Possession to Acquire Ownership. — The possession by the petitioner for a period of two years, when neither the time of possession nor the title of Ms predecessor in interest is shown, is not sufficient to acquire the ownership of real estate by prescription.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
    This is a proceeding instituted in the District Court of Humacao, by Rafael Berlanga y Hostos, for the purpose of establishing his ownership of a rural estate, which case is pending before us on appeal taken by counsel for petitioner from the judgment rendered by said court, which judgment reads as follows:
    “Judgment. — In the city of Humacao, August 25, 1903. In the matter of proceedings instituted by Rafael Berlanga y Hostos, of age, married and a resident of this locality, for a declaration of ownership of several rural estates.
    “On January 5, 1903, Attorney Juan F. Vías, on behalf of Rafael Berlanga Hostos, presented an application to this court for a declaration of ownership in favor of his client, of a farm situated in barrio ‘Rio Abajo/ within this municipal district, consisting" of fourteen cuerdas of level lands devoted to the raising of cocoanut palms and other minor products, and having the following boundaries: On the north, lands belonging to Juan José Sánchez; on the south, lands belonging to the petitioner Berlanga; on the east, the maritime zone; and on the west, lands belonging to Juan Bertrán; which property was acquired by petitioner through purchase from Pilar Torres y Diaz, who had inherited it from her father. Said contract of purchase and sale had been effected by private document, signed and authorized December 31, 1902, before Notary Vías. To verify the facts set forth, he produced the aforesaid private document and proposed that Agustín Pastrana and Juan José Sánchez, who had signed said document as witnesses thereto, be called to testify as to the facts therein recited and to acknowledge in court their respective signatures. $
    
    “By an order issued January 5, 1903, notice of said petition was served upon the Department of Justice, Pilar Torres and other adjoining owners were ordered to be summoned, the evidence proposed was declared pertinent, and instructions were given for a call by notices to be posted in public places in the city of ITumaeao and published in the newspaper, ‘The Porto Rico Sun,’ of the unknown persons whom the desired record might injure, summoning them to appear within the period of sixty natural days to substantiate their claim.
    “The aforesaid adjoining property-owners and the former owner were summoned, while the witnesses Agustín Pastrana and Juan José Sánchez testified that to their knowledge Rafael Berlanga Hos-tos was absolute owner of the aforesaid farm, having acquired it by purchase from Pilar Torres, according to private document executed December 31, 1902, they at the same time acknowledging their signatures in full placed at the foot thereof, with their names and surnames.
    “The notices were published in the newspaper, ‘La De-mocracia,’ and the papers having been forwarded to the Department of Justice, the desired declaration of ownership was opposed by the latter because there did not appear on the record any certificate from the Treasurer of Porto Rico, showing that the petitioner had paid the tax assessed on said property, nor that it had been paid by the former owner.
    . “In the conduct of these proceedings the legal provisions have been observed.
    “Judge Charles E. Foote prepared the opinion of the court, as follows:
    “Article 365 of the Mortgage Law establishes the proceedings relating to dominion, not for persons having a written title of ownership sufficient for the purposes of the Registry of Property, as the one presented by the petitioner, but for those who have no written title whatsoever.
    “We adjudge that the declaration of ownership applied for in these proceedings cannot be allowed.
    “Thus, by this our decision, finally adjudging, do we pronounce, order and sign. Salvador Fulladosa, Ramón Quiñones, Charles E. Foote. ’ ’
    From the foregoing decision petitioner’s counsel took an appeal for a review and stay of proceedings, which was allowed and the record sent up to this Supreme Court, after citation of the parties. Upon their appearance the proper proceedings were had. A day was set and the parties cited .for the hearing, at which the Fiscal of the Supreme Court, who opposed the appeal, was the only one to appear.
    
      Mr. Vias, for appellant.
    
      Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.
   Mr. Chief Justice Quiñohes,

after making the above statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

The findings of fact set forth in the decision appealed from are accepted.

Although article 395 of the Mortgage Law for this Island authorizes the proceedings relating to possession only for such persons as are without a written title of ownership, this should he understood as referring to persons having no title of ownership capable of being recorded in the Registry of Property. And as this is the case with owners who can present only titles of ownership consisting of private documents, not recordable in any form in the Registry because lacking the conditions prescribed for the purpose by article 3 of the Mortgage Law, it is evident that such owners are practically included in article 395 of aforesaid law, and should be allowed to record their property by means of the judicial proceedings established therein.

In the present case, however, the declaration of ownership applied for by the petitioner, Rafael Berlanga y Hostos, cannot be allowed, because he has absolutely failed to establish such ownership, but has only shown that he has been in possession of lands claimed by him as his property for a period of two years, which is not sufficient time for the purpose of acquiring ownership of real estate by prescription. Nor has he in any manner shown how long the property had been in possession of the person from whom he acquired it, nor by virtue of what title the latter’s predecessors had come by said property.

In view of tlie articles of the Mortgage Law cited herein, and those of the new Civil Code applicable to the case, we adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm the decision appealed from, so far as it is therein adjudged that the declaration of ownership applied for cannot be allowed, costs of these proceedings on appeal being imposed upon appellant.

Justices Hernández, Figueras and MacLeary concurred.

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