
    Ex Parte Serrano.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
    No. 75.
    Decided May 12, 1904.
    Dominion Title — Initial Petition — Written Title. — It is neeessary to state in the initial petition instituting proceedings with reference to the ownership of real property, that the petitioner has no dominion title, to the end that he may have his rights recorded by means of the procedure prescribed by article 395 of the Mortgage Law.
    
      It. Possession to Acquire Same — Prescription.—In order to acquire the ownership of real property by prescription, it is necessary to show the time of possession of the petitioner or that of Ms predecessors in interest.
    STATEMENT OP THE CASE.
    This is a proceeding instituted in the District Cour<; of San Joan at the instance of Miguel Serrano Carrasquillo concerning the ownership of two rural estates, which case is pending before us on an appeal taken from the judgment rendered by said district court, which reads as follows:
    “Porto Rico, June 30, 1904. Miguel Serrano Carrasquillo instituted proceedings in this court to establish the ownership of two-rural estates situated in hamo ‘Cedros,’ of Carolina, containing forty and five cuerdas, respectively, one of the value of three hundred and fifty dollars, and the other of one hundred dollars, and averred that he had no recorded title of ownership.
    “Only landowners who have no writtlen title of ownership can avail themselves of the provisions of title XIV of the Mortgage Law, which circumstance, at least, must be stated in the initial petition instituting the proceedings, it not being sufficient to allege the want of a recorded title.
    “In accordance with article 395 of the Mortgage Law, the declaration of ownership requested is denied. So ordered and signed by the court, to which I certify. Juan Morera Martínez, Frank H. Richmond, José Tous Soto. — Luis Méndez Vaz.”
    From this judgmen t counsel for the petitioner took an appeal, which was admitted both for a review and a stay of proceedings, and the record having been sent up to this court, after a citation of the parties, and the appellant having appeared, a day was set for the hearing, which took place without the attendance of any of the parties.
    
      Mr. Ginorio (Emigdio S.)-, for appellant.
    Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.
   Mr. Chief Justice Quiñones,

after stating the foregoing facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

The findings of fact of the judgment appealed from are accepted.

The witnesses Eduvigis Viera y Rodríguez and Felipe Reyes y Pérez, who furnished the only evidence produced by the petitioner, merely testify that the latter has been for some time the full owner of the two rural estates involved in the present proceeding.

Apart from the fact that it is not stated in the initial petition instituting these proceedings that the petitioner, Miguel Serrano Carrasquillo, has no title of ownership, as was necessary to enable him to record’his right by means of the supplementary proceedings prescribed by article 395 of the existing Mortgage Law, it also appears that the investigation made does not afford sufficient grounds/ upon which to base the declaration of ownership applied for, inasmuch as the witnesses produced fail to establish the time of the petitioner’s possession or that of his predecessors in interest, which requisite is essential in order to consider as properly proven the acquisition of the ownership of /the property by prescription.

In consideration of the legal provisions applicable to the case, we adjudge that we ought to affirm and do affirm the judgment appealed from, with costs against the appellant.

Justices Hernández, Figueras, Sulzbacher and MacLeary concurred.  