
    Ex Parte Rieger.
    Appear from the District Court of San Jnan.
    No. 110.
    Decided May 12, 1904.
    DominioN Title — Possession to .Acquire the Same — Prescription.—Possession by the petitioner for the period of three months is not sufficient to acquire the ownership of real property by prescription, and although he may add to his own time of possession that of his predecessor in interest, it is necessary to prove the title by which the latter was in possession so as to enable the court to determine whether or not it is sufficient for the acquisition of ownership.
    Id. — Evidence.—In proceedings with respect to the ownership of real property the witnesses must state their real age, and not limit'themselves to testifying that they are of legal age, since this is a material defeet in this class of evidence when it is thereby sought to show facts which -occurred at remote periods.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    This is a proceeding instituted' in the District Court of San Juan at the instance of Joseph Eieger for the purpose of obtaining a declaration of ownership of a rural estate, which case is pending before ns on an appeal taken from the judgment rendered by the said district court, which reads as follows:
    “San Juan, Porto Rico, September 1, 1903. On the 22d of April of the present year Attorney Juan de Guzman Benitez, as the representative of Joseph Rieger, made application to this court and alleged that some three months before his client purchased from Manuel Andino a rural estate in barrio ‘Buena Vista,’ Bayamón, composed of 28 cuerdas and 50/100 of another cuerda of land, being equivalent to 11 hectares, 20 ares, 16 centares, 40 square centimeters, bounded on the north by lands of José Andino; on the south by lands of Patricia Arvelez, Carmen Ayala and Dorotea Marrero; on the east by lands of Jesus Marrero, Carmen Ortega and Tiburcio Andino, whose property is separated from the estate by the waters of a brook, and lands of Dorotea Andino; -and on the west by lands of Tiburcio Andino, whose property is separated by the Buena Vista highway; the value of the property being five hundred and sixty dollars. That both he and the vendor being without any title of ownership, he instituted these proceedings for the purpose of obtaining one in accordance with article 395 of the Mortgage Law, by means of the testimony of witnesses and asked that the legal citations be issued and that, after compliance with the other requirements of the law, the ownership of the estate in question be declared in favor of his client. The papers having been referred to the Department of Justice for examination and having been returned, the notices were published in the ‘ Heraldo Español, ’ and the adjoining property owners and the former possessor having been cited, three witnesses testified that they are of legal age, but without stating their respective ages in years; that Manuel Andino was in the quiet and peaceable possession of the property for more than twenty years, without interruption on the part of any one, paying taxes thereon; and that the claimant acquired the estate described by purchase from Manuel Andino three months before; adding that the present possessor and the vendor have been, in possession of the estate in good faith and under a proper title.
    ‘ ‘ The verbal hearing prescribed by law having been held, after service of citation- upon the Fiscal, the attorney for the petitioner appeared and alleged such matters as he deemed proper in support of his claim.
    ‘ ‘ The examination of the witnesses held does not fulfill the requirements upon which to base a rational opinion regarding the establishment of ownership in law, since the petitioner has not been in possession a sufficient length of time to prove title by prescription, although in possession of the estate under a proper title; and there is no evidence of a proper title of the former possessor, and the witnesses, besides failing to testify as to their ages, this being an essential point when, as in the present case, possession for more than twenty years is involved, have not given the reasons for their statements.
    “The application made for a declaration of ownership is denied. It was so .ordered and signed by the judges of the court, to which 1 certify: Frank H. Richmond, José Tous Soto, Otto Schoenrieh. — Luis Méndez Yaz.”
    From this judgment counsel for the petitioner took an appeal, which was allowed for a review and stay of proceedings, and the record having been sent up to this court, after citation of the parties, and the appellant having appeared, the appeal was conducted according to the proper procedure and a day set for the hearing, at which no one appeared except the Fiscal of this Supreme Court, who opposed the appeal.
    
      Mr. Guzmán Benitez (Juan), 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 evidence taken does not present sufficient grounds upon which to base the declaration of ownership requested, inasmuch as the petitioner merely shows that he was in possession of the lands in question for three months, which is not sufficient time to acquire the ownership of real property by prescription; and although the witnesses produced add that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was in the quiet and peaceable possession of the property for more than twenty years, under a proper title, the nature of the same is not indicated in such manner as to enable the court to determine whether it was sufficient for the acquisition of ownership. Neither do the witnesses give reasons for their statements nor do they state their true age, but limit themselves to testifying that they are of legal age, this being a material defect in the testimony of witnesses when it is sought to establish facts which occurred at such a remote date. ■,

Having examined article 395 of the Mortgage Law and the other 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.  