
    Aquilúe v. Abreu et al.
    Appeal from the District Court of Areeibo.
    No. 7.
    Decided December 23, 1903.
    Award of Property — Title.—The award of real property constitutes a title of ownership in favor of the person to whom the same has been judicially assigned, which title shall prevail against a third person, provided it has been duly recorded in the registry of property of the district where the property awarded is situated.
    Restitution of Property —Products.—The obligation to restore an estate upon which an attachment has been improperly levied, carries with it the obligation to restore all the crops collected and such as might have been collected as products of such estate.
    Award of Property —Possession.—The possession of real estate is a presumption of possession of the movables and objects contained thereon, unless it is proven that they should be excluded.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    This is a complaint in intervention of ownership, instituted in the District Court of Areeibo by Vicente Aquilúe, plaintiff, represented and defended in this Supreme Court by his counsel, Rafael'López Landrón, Esq., agáinst José Domingo Abren and Andrés Avelino Delgado, defendants, the former represented first by Herminio Díaz Navarro and afterwards by Ramón Nadal Santa Coloma, and the latter, namely, Delgado, being declared in default, which case is pending before us on appeal in cassation, now appeal, taken by both Aquilúe and Abren, from the judgment rendered and decision explanatory thereof which, literally transcribed, read as follows:
    “Judgment No. 45. — In the town of Areeibo, December eighteenth, one thousand, nine hundred and two. — The oral and public hearing was had in this District Court, in an action in intervention of ownership prosecuted by Vicente Aquilúe, of legal age, landowner, a resident of Lares, unmarried, and in his own right, represented by Attorney Simón Large, against José Domingo Abreu, a farmer, resident of Hatillo, represented by Attorney Ramón Nadal, and Andrés Avelino Delgado, in default, also a farmer and a resident of Utuado.
    “In summary proceedings'instituted in this court by José Domingo Abreu against Andrés A. Delgado, a farm was attached by the former as belonging to the latter, said farm consisting of sixty cuerdas, more or less, or twenty-three hectares, fifty-eight ares, four centares of broken lands, situated in barrio ‘Angeles,’ the greater part of which was planted with coffee, plantains, bananas, small fruits and pasture. This property is bounded on the north by lands belonging to the debtor, Delgado; on the south by the Estate of Manuel Cortés and the old Lares road, as also by the lands owned by José Domingo and Carolina Abreu; and on the east and west by lands belonging to the aforesaid Andrés Avelino Delgado. Upon said property there stand an open straw-roofed shed twenty-seven varas long by six wide; a straw-roofed house, of native wood, five varas deep by six wide; an open thatched shed, built of native wood, sixteen varas long by seven wide, situated on a farm consisting of one, hundred and eighty cuer-das that was adjudicated to Vicente Aquilúe in execution proceedings prosecuted by Lecaroz & Co. against the debtor, Andrés A. Delgado; another house built of native wood, having a zinc roof and measuring five varas in front by six deep, two straw-roofed huts enclosed with native wood, four varas deep by five in front; another small palm-roofed house built of native wood, measuring eight varas in front by six deep. The last mentioned house stands on a piece of land consisting of thirty-six cuerdas, awarded to Vicente Aquilúe, and the other three on the one hundred and eighty cuerdas already described. Two masonry terraces for drying coffee, one measuring twenty-six varas long by eight wide, and the other twenty varas long by eight wide, both standing likewise on the one hundred and eighty cuerdas already described which were awarded to Vicente Aquilúe. And there existing no other known property, the movable property attached, namely, the timber and crops ready to be gathered from the above-described farms was deposited with the debtor, Andrés A. Delgado, under the admonitions contained in Judicial Order No. 57, of May 5, 1899, be being subsequently on bis own request replaced by Liborio Bello.
    “Shortly afterwards Vicente Aquilúe, through his attorney, Simón Largó, brought an action in intervention of ownership as to the attached property, alleging that Andrés A. Delgado was the owner and possessor of a farm situated in barrio ‘Angeles,’ within the municipal district of Utuado, consisting of one hundred and eighty cuerdas, equal to seventy hectares, seventy-four ares and seventy-two centares, planted with coffee, bananas and other fruits, pastures, undergrowth and woods, the same being bounded on the north by lands belonging to Miguel Pozo, and the Estate of Sebastian Gonzalez ; on the east by lands of Plácido González and of the aforesaid Estate of Sebastián González; on the south, by the old road leading from Utuado to Lares, lands belonging to Juan Rodríguez and the ‘Angeles’ river; and on the west, by lands belonging to Rafael Pio Soto, Mrs. Severiana Martinez, the aforesaid Rodríguez and Soto, the ‘Angeles’ river, and lands belonging to Santos Soto and Manuel Reyes; that on January 5, 1899, the Lares firm, Leearoz & Co., creditors of Andrés A. Delgado, in a sum of money amounting to thousands of dollars, made application to the former Court of First Instance of Utuado, giving good reasons for an attachment of property belonging to the debtor Delgado, in the sum of fourteen thousand seven hundred and ninety-one pesos and sixty-nine centavos, provincial money, as principal, and two thousand pesos for interest and costs, which attachment was decreed on the 6th of said month of January and levied among other properties, on a farm situated in barrio ‘Angles, ’ within the municipal district of Utuado, consisting of one hundred and eighty cuerdas, equal to seventy hectares, seventy-four ares and seventy-two centares, .with plantations of coffee, bananas, pastures, brush, woods, etc., etc., bounded on the north by lands belonging to Miguel Pozo,'on the east by lands belonging to Plácido Gonzá-lez, Juan Rodríguez, and the river ‘Angeles,’ and on the west by the property of Rafael Rios Soto; that the farm first described is the same one that among others had been attached as a cautionary measure and executed by Leearoz & Co. in proceedings against Delgado, and is now owned by Vicente Aquilúe, for although in the description of the former it appears bounded on the south by the old road from IJttiado to Lares, by lands of Juan Rodríguez and tbe river ‘An-geles,’ and in that of the second, these last boundaries appear on the east, and no boundaries are given on the south, .while in the second description it appears to be bounded on the west by lands of Rafael Ríos Soto, instead of Rafael Pío Soto, mentioned in the first description, this is due to an involuntary omission or clercial error, implying no difference as to the properties; that the registrar’s certificate which he presents shows moreover, that the property of Delgado attached by Lecaroz & Co., described in the second place, now belonging to Vicente Aquilúe, is the same one that was first described,, and the fact that in the second description of the property no mention is made of the adjoining Estate of Sebastián González, which in the first description appears on the north and east, nor of the contiguous landowners Severiana Martinez, the aforesaid Rodriguez and. Pozo, the ‘Angeles’ river and lands belonging to Santos Soto and. Manuel Reyes, which appear to be on the west in the first description, this is due either to an involuntary omission made when the attachment by Lecaroz & Co. was applied for and levied, or to a modification and change of ownership of the lands adjoining the farm oru that side, which may have reduced the boundaries to what they are at present, namely, on the north, lands once belonging to Miguel Pozo, now the property of Vicente Aquilúe, and those owned by An-drés A Delgado; on the south, the ‘Angeles’ river, lands belonging to José Domingo Abreu, formerly to Juan Rodríguez, and the old Utuado-Lares road; on the east, by lands owned by Plácido Gonzá-lez, now by Zacarías Díaz Bello; on the west by lands of Rafael Pío, Soto, Juan Luis Sotomayor and Isidro Vega; that the attachment be-' ing levied, Lecaroz & Co. instituted execution proceedings against Andrés A. Delgado, the cautionary attachment having been ratified within the prescribed period; the decree of execution was thereupon issued and the same was levied on the attached properties, and was also made to include the crops produced by said properties; proceedings were duly had the same being opposed by the execution debtor, and judgment was then rendered ordering the execution to be proceeded with until the attached property and the products thereof had heen sold and with the proceeds that payment in full be made to the creditor of principal, interest and costs; that notice of the judgment having been served upon the parties, the execution debtor, Delgado, took the appeals allowed by law, and as the execution creditor, Lecaroz & Co., deemed it to their interest to have the judgment ordering the sale enforced immediately, tbey prayed tbe court that compulsory proceedings be bad notwithstanding tbe appeal taken by Delgado offering to fnrnisb bond to answer for tbe restitution of whatever amount be might receive, in ease tbe judgment was reversed and Lecaroz & Go. called upon to make good such amount; said mortgage bond was duly executed by tbe plaintiff within tbe period fixed by law, and tbe same having been deemed sufficient by the judge it was approved and tbe original record was forwarded to tbe Supreme Court and tbe parties cited to appear, a certified copy of the portion of the judgment necessary for tbe execution being left with the lower court; that as a consequence of this, and for the purpose of securing the effectiveness of tbe judgment ordering tbe sale, tbe compulsory proceedings were instituted at tbe request of tbe plaintiff; after these proceedings were duly bad and all tbe requirements of tbe law complied with, upon tbe •demand of tbe execution creditor tbe attached property was offered at public auction, a day being fixed therefor; as- no bidder appeared Le-caroz & Go. asked that said property be awarded to them for two-thirds of tbe appraised value thereof, they to convey the same to a third party; the instrument recording this transaction was approved by this court, and a decision issued under date of February 6, 1900, awarding the attached property to the execution creditors, which decision became final upon the dismissal of the appeals taken by counsel for the execution debtor; that the property was awarded to Leca-roz & Co., which firm, making use of the right reserved to it at the public sale, assigned the award to the third party, Vicente Aquilúe, who paid Lecaroz & Go. for said assignment, the two thirds of the appraised value that had been bid; the award of the property was requested to be made for said amount, and the court by its decree of March 1 of the same year, in conformity with the request of the plaintiff, decided that the aforesaid award should be understood to have been made in favor of Vicente Aquilúe, to whom the property was thus transferred, including therein the one hundred and eighty ■cuerdas hereinbefore referred to, as also the judicial possession thereof, the liquidation of the principal, interest and costs being likewise approved; that the proper letters mandatory having been issued to the municipal judge of Utuado. for the purposes of the judicial possession, the said judge gave such possession of one hundred and eighty cuerdas, along with other properties included therein, to the new owner, Vicente Aquilúe, who has since been holding said property, as its rightful owner and performing acts of a character showing his full ownership thereof; that the property sold under execution proceedings having been assigned by Lecaroz & Co. to Aquilúe, he is the only legitimate owner and possessor of aforesaid tract .of one hundred and eighty cuerdas, of which mention has been made; that after the acquisition by Aquilúe of the property of Delgado which had been attached and sold by Lecaroz & Co., in summary proceedings instituted against Andrés A. Delgado by José Domingo Abreu, an attachment had been levied, among other properties, on a tract of land or farm, as belonging to said Delgado, situated in barrio 'Angeles/ within the municipal district of Utuado, consisting of sixty cuerdas, more or less, equal to twenty-three hectares, fifty-eight ares and twenty-four centares, planted with coffee, plantains .and bananas, small fruits and pasture, the same being bounded on the north by lands belonging to aforesaid Delgado, on the south by the Estate of Manuel Cortés, the old Utuado-Lares road and property owned by José Domingo Abreu and Carolina Abreu, and on the east and west, by lands belonging to the said Delgado; but it appears that the tract or farm hereinbefore described forms an integral part, and is situated within the boundaries of the farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas to which reference has been made; that in the attchment, the process served upon Delgado by Abreu as - a result of the summary proceedings instituted against the former by the latter, a mistake has been made in the boundaries of the tract of sixty cuerdas, more or less, levied upon, and no account has been had of the fact that said tract of land lies within the aforesaid farm of one hundred and eighty cuer-das belonging to Aquilúe, in proof of which he designates the real boundaries of the tract in question, namely, on the north, lands belonging to Andrés A. Delgado; on the south, lands owned by José Domingo Abreu and Carolina Abreu, and the old Utuado-Lares road which separates said tract from the Estate of Manuel Cortés; on the east, lands of Plácido González now belonging to Zacarías Díaz Bello, and on the west, the property of Vicente Aquilúe, formerly of An-drés A. Delgado; that in order to, show that the tract of sixty cuerdas more or less, attached by José Domingo Abreu, as belonging to Andrés A. Delgado, is an integral part of the one hundred and eighty cuer-das belonging to Aquilúe, we need but take into account the fact that of the boundaries of said tract, mentioned in the writ of attachment, the one on the north lies within the body of the farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas belonging to Aquilúe, by which it is bounded on that side, and the boundaries assigned to it on the north, south and east, correspond to those appearing on the same sides of the farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas, the boundaries on these three last-mentioned cardinal points of the tract attached by Abreu coinciding with those that appear on the same cardinal points of the aforesaid farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas belonging to Aquilúe; because of the lands of José Domingo and Carolina Abreu, and the old Lares-Utuado road, bounded on the south by said piece of land, are those that form the boundaries of the aforesaid farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas on that side, which latter is also bounded on the same cardinal point by the ‘Angeles’ river; because the lands of Plá-cido González, now of Zacarías Díaz Bello, by which the attached tract is bounded on the east, and which erronously appear in the attachment papers as belonging to Delgado, are likewise those that form the boundary on that side of the farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas belonging to Aquilúe; and because the land which forms the western boundary of the said property, assigned to Delgado by an error in the writ of attachment, lies wholly within the aforesaid farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas; that for the foregoing reasons the absolute ownership of the tract or farm of sixty cuerdas, more or less, attached by Abreu as the property of Delgado, does not belong to Delgado but to Aquilúe to whom it has belonged from a date prior to the attachment levied at the request of Abreu, inasmuch as Aquilúe, prior to said attachment, was the owner and possessor of the farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas whereof the aforesaid tract forms a part; that said tract of land attached by Abreu, and constituting an integral part of the one hundred and eighty cuerdas above mentioned, is in the quiet and peaceable possession of Aquilúe, who has been performing acts of a possessory character thereon since the first of April last, prior to its attachment at the request of Abreu, wherefore when said attachment was levied it did not belong to Andrés A. Delgado; and that together with said tract of land the following buildings were attached: A straw-roofed shed not enclosed, measuring twenty-seven by six varas, situated upon said tract; a straw-roofed shed, sixteen by seven varas, without enclosure, built of native wood, situated upon the farm of one hundred and eighty eti-erdas, awarded to Aquilúe; two small straw-roofed houses or hutSj enclosed with native wood, four varas deep by five in front, situated upon the aforesaid farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas; two masonry terraces for drying coffee, one measuring twenty-six by eight varas, standing on aforesaid farm; a straw-roofed house of native wood, five by six v.aras, 
      wbieb in the writ of attachment is made to appear as situated on the tract of twenty cuerdas, and said to belong to Delgado, whereas the house in question stands on the farm of thirty-two cuerdas belonging to Aquilúe; another, house, eight varas in front by six in depth, built of native wood', palm-roofed, standing on á farm of thirty-six cuerdas, belonging to Aquilúe; another house measuring eight varas in front by six deep, built of native wood, and palm-roofed, standing on the same farm of thirty-six cuerdas; and that all the buildings described belong to Aquilúe, since they existed on the farms where they now stand when said farms were attached by Leearoz & Co., in summary proceedings against Delgado.
    “After setting forth the grounds .upon which he based his complaint he prayed the’ court to order the immediate suspension of the compulsory proceedings in the executory .action instituted by Abreu against Delgado, which was done, and that final judgment be rendered declaring the ownership of'the attached property in favor of the plaintiff in intervention, who filed with his complaint the certificate of the Registrar of Property of the district to the effect that the farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas was recorded in favor of the plaintiff, and a copy of the letters mandatory issued by this court to the municipal judge of Utuado directing that the plaintiff in intervention be given possession of the property formerly belonging to Delgado that had been awarded to the firm of Leearoz & Co., and transferred by the latter to Aquilúe.
    “Notice of the complaint having been served upon the execution creditor and execution debtor, it was returned by the former, José Domingo Abreu, represented by Attorney Ramón Nadal, who on the 12th of August last filed an answer containing the following statement: That Andrés Avelino Delgado was owner of the farm first described in the complaint, and is the owner of the farm of sixty cuerdas, more or less, equal to twenty three hectares, fifty-eight ares and twenty-four centares of broken lands, situated in bewrio ‘Angeles/ within the municipal ' district of Utuado, mostly planted with coffee, plantains and bananas, minor produce and pasture, the same being bounded on the north by lands belonging to said Delgado; on the south by the Estate of Manuel Cortés and by the old road formerly leading from Utuado to Lares, and the lands , owned by José Domingo Abreu and Carolina Abreu; on the east and west by lands belonging to aforesaid Andrés Avelino Delgado, on which tract stands a straw-roofed shed, not enclosed, twenty-seven varas deep by six wide, the first-mentioned property being recorded in the registry in the name of Delgado, it having been acquired by him in the manner described in certificate No 1 filed by the adverse party, the other property hereinbefore described, not being recorded because it was acquired without a recordable title; that it is true that Lecaroz & Co. had levied an attachment upon lands of the farm first described in the complaint, in conformity with the boundaries first given in describing the one referred to in the second place; but even admitting that in said attachment these boundaries were erroneous and that the farm levied upon is in reality the one first described, it does not follow, nor can it be inferred therefrom, that the tract of land or farm of sixty cuerdas, more or less, attached by José Domingo Abreu, is included in that of the farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas which had been awarded to Vicente Aquilúe, because, in that case, the inference would be that Abreu desired to reduce said gentleman’s property to one hundred and twenty cuer-das, which cannot be his purpose, knowing, as we do, his manner of dealing and the honesty and nobility which inspire all his acts, and because the boundaries of both farms are entirely different on three •points, for the farm of sixty cuerdas, more or less, involved in this complaint in intervention is bounded on the north, east and west by lands belonging to Delgado himself, and the fact that both farms are bounded on the south by the same properties, is wholly immaterial, because one may lie on the right and the other on the left of said contiguous properties, without being confused, and because the farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas was acquired by Delgado in satisfaction of six thousand pesos for which the estate of Petra Rodriguez was indebted to him, as shown by certificate No. 1, filed by the plaintiff himself. He had acquired, the farm of sixty cuerdas, more or less, from José-Domingo Abreu, who had in turn acquired it from Agustín Pla; that with respect to the first shed, the same is situated on the farm which is the subject of the complaint in intervention, nor was it made a special object of Lecaroz & Co’s, attachment, and if we do not consider the plaintiff as having any title to the farm under discussion, much less can we recognize his title to aforesaid shed; moreover, the latter is even more independent, indeed further removed from all the arguments employed by him with reference to his farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas, than is the farm of sixty cuerdas, more or less; for if with the aforesaid farms the opposite party aims to determine questions of boundaries, he cannot expect to accomplish his purpose with said shed, since the latter has in no wise been taken into account for the appraisement giving rise to the award in favor of Aquilúe, in the execution proceedings prosecuted by Lecaroz & Co.; and that the -terrace for drying coffee and other houses described in the complaint in intervention of ownership, though some of them stand on the tract of one hundred and eighty cuerdas owned by Aquilúe, they stood there prior to the attachment levied by Lecaroz & Co., and therefore prior to the award, and both in the latter and in the former, were not only not specified, but neither appraised nor sold at auction, wherefore the only way the adverse party can explain the claim set up in the final prayer of his complaint, is by alleging that they belong to him by accession. Finally he prayed that the complaint in intervention be dismissed with costs. ,
    “The complaint in intervention not having been answered by the execution debtor, Andrés A. Delgado, he was declared in default, on motion of the plaintiff, and in the proceedings for the proposal of evidence, the same was proposed by the plaintiff in intervention and by the execution creditor, that of the former being: Confession in court by José Domingo Abreu and Andrés A. Delgado; documentary evidence consisting of a notarial act correcting the omissions and errors of the decree of adjudication of the farm that had been conveyed by Lecaroz & Co. to the plaintiff; geometrical plans of the same, sketch and revised plan of said farm; certificate of survey and copies of the papers in the summary proceedings instituted by Abreu against Delgado for the recovery of money, and a certificate of the papers served in connection with the judicial possession ordered by the court to be given to Vicente Aquilúe; judicial inspection of the property constituting the subject-matter of the complaint in intervention, the opinion of the experts and testimony of witnesses, which evidence was declared pertinent, with the exception of the judicial inspection.
    “The defendant José Domingo Abreu also proposed as documentary evidence: Certificates from, the registrar of property relating to the admission to record of the farm bf one hundred and eighty cuerdas in favor of Vicente Aquilúe, and a certificate from the clerk of the court with reference to the award decreed in the execution proceedings instituted by Lecaroz & Co. against Andrés A. Delgado; judicial and ocular inspection of the farm which is the object of this complaint in intervention; expert testimony of the survey of aforesaid farm, and the examination of witnesses, which evidence was also declared pertinent, except as to that relating to the judicial inspection, and a day was accordingly set for the hearing, at which counsel for the plaintiff in intervention and for the defendant execution creditor were present.
    “At the hearing José Domingo Abreu confessed that .the sixty ■cuerdas, the subject-matter' of the complaint in intervention, had first belonged to him, and were subsequently awarded to Andrés A. Delgado together with others to make up one hundred and eighty cuerdas, all of which had been distrained from Delgado by the firm of Lecaroz & Co.; that they were surveyed in 1880 by the surveyor, Vicente Viñas, and that said lands had always been bounded on the south by the river ‘Angeles’ and the Lares road; and Andrés Avelino Delgado also confessed at the hearing that the aforesaid surveyor Vicente Viñas had in 1880 surveyed the farm of one hundred and eighty cuer-das, conveyed to Delgado and that the same had formerly belonged to Abreu.
    “The certificate of the Registrar of Property of Arecibo shows that under No. 306, folio 60, volume VI, of Utuado, a record appears of the farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas, more or less, situated 'in barrio ‘Los Angeles,’ bounded on the north by lands belonging to Miguel Pozo and the Estate of Sebastián González; on the east by lands of Plácido González; on the south by the old Lares road, by 'lands belonging to Juan Rodriguez and.by the ‘Angeles’ river; ■and on the west by lands belonging to Rafael Pío- Soto, Severiana Martínez, Juan Rodriguez, Miguel Pozo, the ‘Angeles’ river and lands of Santos Soto and Manuel Reyes, which contiguous properties are all devoted to the cultivation of coffee, minor produce and pasture, the aforesaid farm being recorded as the property of José Domingo Abreu from whom it was acquired by Andrés A. Delgado, and upon which an attachment was levied by the firm of Lecaroz & Co. ■of Lares in summary proceedings against Delgado, no mention being made of its boundaries on the south in the notice of said attachment.
    ‘ ‘ The same farm, upon which is situated a two-story frame house, a building for the storage of coffee, with a coffee pulper, and •another shed, appears in aforesaid certificate from the registrar, as having been awarded to Lecaroz & Co., of Lares, who had transfer■red it to Vincente Aquilúe, this court having approved said transfer of the award, the farm being finally recorded in favor of afore-said Aquilúe.
    
      “From tbe expert testimony introduced it appears that the tract of sixty cuerdas, involved in this litigation, lies within the farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas, more or less, the award whereof was transferred by Lecaroz & Co. to the plaintiff in intervention, Aquilúe, the experts Vicente Viñas, José Escudé, and José Ricarte declaring that the boundaries of aforesaid sixty cuerdas are: On the north, east and west, lands belonging to*said Aquilúe, and on the-south, the Lares road; testimony was also given by eight of the eleven witnesses who were examined on the trial, to the effect that the sixty cuerdas in dispute belong to the plaintiff in intervention, which testimony was not contradicted by the other three, all of these witnesses having been for many years residents of barrio ‘Angeles/ of Utuado where said farm is situated.
    “In the conduct of this case all the legal formalities have been observed. Presiding Judge Felipe Cuchí Arnau prepared the opinion of the court.
    “It is a legal doctrine sanctioned by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Spain, in numerous decisions, that the award of real property constitutes a title of ownership in favor of the person to whom the same has been judicially assigned, whose title shall prevail against a third person, provided it has been duly recorded in the Registry of Property of the District where the realty awarded is situated.
    “The farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas, more or less, hereinbefore described, was awarded by this court on February 6, 1900, to the firm of Lecaroz & Co., who transferred all their titles and rights, for a valuable consideration, to Vicente Aquilúe, who thus subrogated them therein, remaining from that moment absolute owner thereof, which ownership he could at any time prove against a third party, inasmuch as he had recorded the assignment in the Registry of Property, pursuant to the provisions of article 2, paragraph 1, and article 23, paragraph 1, of the Mortgage Law.
    “The parcel of sixty cuerdas of land which is the subject-matter of this action in intervention of ownership forms an integral part of the farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas, more or less, which appears recorded in the name of the plaintiff in intervention, Aquilúe; for although the boundaries on the south were omitted in the record, the expert testimony has shown-that the river ‘Angeles’ and the Lares road had never been on the eastern, but on the southern boundary oí the farm, which proves that in aforesaid record the eastern and southern boundaries of the property were grouped together through an error, instead of being given separately.
    “The testimony of the witnesses, as set down in the record, also shows, without leaving any doubt whatever, that the tract of sixty cuerdas of land, which is involved in this suit, is situated at the south of the tract of one hundred and eighty cuerdas, more or less, in the aggregate, belonging to the plaintiff in intervention, Aquilúe, and that it is the same which, through a mistake, was attached by José Domingo Abreu, as belonging to his son-in-law, Andrés A. Delgado, in the summary proceedings whereof this complaint in intervention is an incidental issue.
    “Although it is true that on the farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas, more or less, which in the Registry of Property appears recorded in the name of the plaintiff in intervention, Aquilúe, and whereof the portion of sixty cuerdas, which is the object of said intervention, is an integral part, there stands a frame house, a building for the storage of coffee, with a coffee pulper, and a shed, it is not proper to discuss in this suit the question as to whether or not said buildings have become the property of the plaintiff in intervention, inasmuch as the intervention has reference only to the sixty cuerdas which were by mistake attached as belonging to Andrés A. Delgado; the point at issue being the identity of said sixty cuerdas with the title of the plaintiff in intervention, and not the extent of the award made, in other proceedings, to Lecaroz & Co., and transferred to Aquilúe.
    “From the certificate of the Registrar of Property of Areeibo,' and the expert testimony given, it appears that the farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas, more or less, situated in barrio ‘Los An-geles’ within the municipal district of XJtuado, is bounded on the north by lands belonging to Miguel Pozo and the Estate of González; on the east by those of Plácido González; on the south by the river ‘Angeles’ and the Lares road; and on the west, by lands of Rafael Pío Soto, now belonging to Luis Soto, and Estate of Martinez; that the same is recorded in the name of Yicente Aquilúe, and that the tract of sixty cuerdas in controversy forms an integral part of said one hum-’ fired and. eighty cuerdas, according to the witnesses, residents and taxpayers of the barrio ‘Angeles/ who Rave testified in tRese proceedings, and tRerefore tRe complaint in intervention of ownersRip must Re sustained.
    “TRe otRer. evidence introduced in tfiis suit strengtRens tRe conviction tRat tRe title described. aRove, which appears recorded in tRe Registry of Property in favor of tRe plaintiff in intervention Aqulúe, is legitimate and sufficient to estaRlisR tRe ownersRip of tRe sixty cuerdas in controversy, tRe identity wRereof Ras been proven beyond doubt.
    “TRe opposition of José Domingo Abreu to this complaint in intervention of ownersRip sRould not be considered as temerity on Ris part, for wRicR reason tRe present suit sRould be decided without special imposition of costs.
    “In view of articles 348, 349,-1218, 1232, 1242, 1256, of the Civil Code, articles 8 and 24 of the Mortgage Law, 371, 577, 1530, 1531, 1533 and 1537 of the Law of Civil Procedure, the decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of May 8, 1878, and December 12, 1877, as also General Order No. 118, series of 1899, we adjudge that we sRould declare and do declare that the complaint in intervention of owner-sRip interposed by Vicente Aquilúe over the tract of. sixty cuerdas of land, situated in barrio ‘Los Angeles/ within the municipal district of ITtuado, and attached by Domingo Abreu, as belonging to Andrés Avelino Delgado, in thé. summary proceedings instituted against the latter in the District Court of Areeibo, must be sustained without special imposition of costs. Thus by this our decision, finally adjudging, do we find, order and sign. Felipe Cuchí, Otto SRoén-rich, Enrique González.
    “Areeibo, December twenty-third, one thousand nine hundred and one.
    “On the 18tR instant this court rendered judgment in the complaint in intervention of ownersRip prosecuted by Vicente Aquilúe against José D. Abreu and Andrés A. Delgado, the latter in default, the adjudging portion of which judgment reads as follows: We adjudge that we sRould sustain and do sustain the complaint in intervention of ownersRip instituted by Vicente Aquilúe, with reference to a tract of sixty cuerdas of land, situated in barrio ‘Los Angeles/ within the municipal district of Utuado, and upon which an attachment has been levied by José Domingo Abreu, as the property of Andrés A. Delgado, in execution proceedings prosecuted against the latter in the District Court of Arecibo, without any special imposition of costs.
    “On the twenty-third of this month Simón Largé, counsel for Vicente Aquilúe, availing himself of the right allowed to parties by article 362 of the Law of Civil Procedure, presented a petition requesting an elucidation of the judgment and that a definite statement be made as to whether the court sustained the complaint in intervention with reference to the buildings, which according to the plaintiff’s allegation, stood on the tract of sixty ctierdas of land that had been attached; that a decision be made as'to the crops and products claimed by the plaintiff and as to the cancellation of the notice of attachment entered in the Registry of Property, these points not having been definitely disposed of in the judgment rendered with respect to the complaint in intervention of ownership.
    “Inasmuch as at the trial it has not been proven that the buildings mentioned by the plaintiff in intervention as standing on the tract of sixty cuerdas of land, the ownership whereof has been pronounced in his favor in the judgment, were really within said tract, the declaration of ownership as to aforesaid sixty cuerdas could not be made to include the buildings in question, nor could it be argued on the other hand that said buildings are situated within the tract of one hundred and eighty cuerdas, whereof the sixty cuerdas tract forms an integral part, as they might be situated any where else within said one hundred and eighty mierdas and be the object of contention in other proceedings that might be instituted to determine the scope or extent of the adjudication made in favor of Lecaroz & Co., as stated in one of the conclusions contained in the judgment.
    “The obligation on the part of José Domingo Abreu to return to the plaintiff in intervention, Aquilúe, the tract of sixty cuerdas of land, carries with it the obligation of returning also the crops gathered or that might have been gathered by him as products of said tract, the notice of attachment whereof should also, as a logical consequence, be canceled in the Registry of Property of this district.
    “The elucidation of the judgment rendered in these proceedings has been requested in due time.
    “In view of the provisions of article 362 of the Law of Civil Procedure, the judgment rendered in favor of Vicente Aquilúe, in the complaint in intervention of ownership over a tract of sixty cuerdas 
      of land, is elucidated by declaring that said intervention of ownership has reference only to the lands that have been identified on the trial as belonging to the plaintiff, and not to the buildings specified in the complaint, inasmuch as it has not been proven that said buildings stood on aforesaid tract of sixty cuerdas, and the defendant, Abreu,' is under obligation to return aforesaid tract of land with the products yielded by the same, from the date of entry of the complaint in intervention; and the notice of attachment entered at the Registry of Property in the name of the defendant, Abreu, to be accordingly canceled, only as to the tract of sixty cuerdas, which is the subject-matter of this complaint in intervention.
    “Concurred in and signed by the judges of the court, to which I certify. Felipe Cuchi, Otto Schoenrich, Enrique Gonzalez. Rafael Tirado. ’ ’
    From aforesaid judgment and elucidation thereof, ■ José Domingo Abren took an appeal in cassation-for error of procedure and error of law, while Vicente Aquilúe also took an appeal in cassation for error of law; and the records having been forwarded to this Supreme Court, Abreu abandoned the appeal for error of procedure, the other two appeals in cassation for error of law being continued up to the time of the hearing, but in view of an act of the Legislative Assembly of the twelfth of March last, changing the Supreme Court of Porto Eico into a court of appeals, said appeals in cassation were dealt with as ordinary appeals, and a day having been set for the hearing, counsel for José Domingo Abreu and Vicente Aquilúe made such arguments as they deemed proper in support of their respective claims.
    
      Mr.- López Landrón, for plaintiff and appellant.
    
      Messrs. Lías and Nadal, for defendant and appellant.
    The other plaintiff (sic) did not appear.
   Mr. Justice HerNÁNdez,

after making the above statement of facts, delivered the following opinion of the court:

The findings of fact contained in the above judgment and tbe decision in elucidation thereof are accepted, except the seventh and tenth contained in the judgment. ■ .

In his complaint Vicente Aquilúe prayed that judgment be rendered declaring that the tract of land or farm of sixty cuerdas, more or less, that had been attached at the instance of José Domingo Abreu, as also the products, houses, terrace for drying coffee and other constructions mentioned in said complaint and likewise attached by Abreu, belong to and are in the possession of Aquilúe, and that consequently the attachment levied on said properties be dissolved, so that they may remain at his free disposal, with costs against the defendant or defendants who may oppose said demand.

In the summary proceedings, instituted by Lecaroz & Co. against Andrés Avelino Delgado, for the collection of fourteen thousand seven hundred and ninety-one pesos, provincial money, interest and costs, by an order made on February 6, 1900, the properties attached, namely, a farm consisting of one hundred and eighty cuerdas, having on the premises a shingle-roofed two-story house, with siding and flooring of native wood, said house measuring twelve varas in front by fourteen deep, with a zinc-roofed wing forming a kitchen, eight varas front by sixteen deep; a warehouse containing at one end a coffee-pulper, tanks, etc., also zinc-roofed, and a frame hoúse sixteen varas in front by five deep, likewise zinc-roofed, used as quarters for peons; another farm consisting of thirty-six cuerdas, and a third farm of thirty-two cuerdas, having a zinc-roofed dwelling house and kitchen, with flooring and siding of native wood; which three farms are situated in barrio “Angeles,” municipal district of Utuado, and were awarded to Lecaroz & Co. for three-fourths of the appraised value; and Lecaroz & Co. having transferred said award to Vicente Aqnilúe, judicial possession of 'the same was given the latter on April 2 of that year.

According to the opinion of the expert witnesses, Vicente Viñas, José Eseuté and José Eicarte, the two masonry terraces for drying coffee, the shed of sixteen by seven varas and the two small houses ór huts attached by Abren, stand within the farm of one hundred and eighty cuerdas to which reference has been made, while the thatched houses respectively of five by six varas, and eight varas front by six deep, both of native wood, stand within .the aforementioned farm of thirty-six cuerdas.

Although the same experts stated.in their report, ratified under oath, that the sixty cuerdas tract attached by José Domingo Abreu, as belonging to Andrés Avelino Delgado, forms an intergal part of the one hundred and eighty cuerdas of land awarded to Lecaroz & Co., and transferred by the latter to Vicente Aquilúe, said tract being bounded on the north, east and west by property of Vicente Aquilúe, and on the south by the old and new roads leading to Lares, in an amplification of their report said experts did not agree, for Viñas asserted that the sixty cuerdas attached as belonging to Delgado are comprised within the one hundred and eighty cuerdas belonging to Aquilúe. Eicarte was of the same opinion, although not positive about it, and Eseuté stated that he could not speak definitely, because he had not been furnished with sufficient data.

José Domingo Abreu confessed that he was at one time owner of the one hundred and eighty cuerdas, which had been acquired by Delgado and afterwards awarded to Lecaroz & Co., which firm had transferred it to Vicente Aquilúe, the same being bounded on tbe south by the Lares road and the “Angeles” river; and Delgado admitting that said farm had been awarded to him in satisfaction of a credit against the estate of Petra Bodríguez, Abren’s wife; and ten witnesses having been examined at the oral hearing at the request of Aquilúe, eight of them testified to the effect that the sixty cuerdas attached in the proceedings against Delgado, formed part of the one hundred and eighty cuerdas awarded to Le-caroz & Co., and transferred by the latter to the plaintiff in intervention, which testimony was not contradicted by the other two witnesses.

The conclusions on which the judgment appealed from is based, with the exception of the fifth and eighth thereof, are accepted, as also the second of the decision in elucidation thereof.

In the present suit the question at issue is not only the ownership of the sixty cuerdas of land attached by José Domingo Abreu, as belonging to Andrés Avelino Delgado, but also the ownership of the houses, sheds, terraces and other constructions likewise attached by Abreu, as shown by the complaint wherein Vicente Aquilúe prays that judgment be rendered declaring that said lands and constructions belong to him, which claim was opposed by the defendant Abreu, proofs being submitted by the plaintiff in intervention, in justification of each and every one of- his claims, wherefore it is obvious that a decision must be rendered upon all these controverted points.

At the hearing it has been shown that the houses, sheds, terraces and other constructions claimed by the plaintiff in intervention, Vicente Aquilúe, together with the sixty cuer-das attached by Abreu, stand upon lands which were awarded in summary proceedings instituted by Lecaroz & Co. against Andrés Avelino Delgado for the recovery of money, Aquilúe' having been put in possession thereof by virtue of a transfer of said award made to Mm by Lecaroz & Co. without excluding' anytMng contained therein, it being therefore evident that Aquilúe, at the time the attachment was made which gave rise to the complaint in intervention, was also in possession of the houses, sheds, terraces and other constructions, which stood on said lands, and in such legal possession he should be protected, the defendants having failed to present any better title to show that he should be deprived of said possession.

Inasmuch as all the claims of the opponent, José Domingo^ Abreu, should be dismissed, all the costs incurred in the lower court must be imposed upon him.

In view of the legal authorities cited in the judgment, as also articles 446, 448 and 449 of the Civil Code, applicable to the case, we adjudge that affirming the judgment and the elucidation thereof appealed from, so far as they agree with the above considerations, and reversing the same as to the other points, we should sustain and do sustain the complaint in intervention of ownership instituted by Vicente Aquilúe with reference to the tract of sixty cuerdas of' land and constructions mentioned in said complaint, and order that the attachment levied upon all the properties involved in this suit, be dissolved, and that the same be left at the free disposal of Vicente Aquilúe, together with such products as he may have been deprived of by reason of the attachment, the entry thereof in the Registry of Property must be canceled, and costs of the trial imposed upon José Domingo Abreu, as also the costs of the appeal, in the ordinary manner. The record is ordered to be returned to the court of Arecibo, with the proper certificate.

Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Sulzbacher and Mac-Leary concurred.

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