
    Monclova, Plaintiff, Appellant and Appellee, v. Rexach, Defendant, Appellee and Appellant.
    Appeals from the District Court of Arecibo in an Action to Annul Possessory Title Proceedings and their Record in the Registry.
    Nos. 1479 and 1481.
    Decided July 10, 1916.
    Possessors' Title Proceedinq — Ownership — Prescription ■— Description of Property. — In an action for annulment of a possessory title proceeding and cancellation of its record in the registry, an averment that the plaintiff ■ believes he holds title by prescription because he owns a house on the property, without showing the nature of the prescription or clearly describing the property, is not a sufficient allegation of ownership.
    Id. — Complaint.—-A complaint should be based on the merits of its own allegations and not on its relation to other suits.
    Attorney Pees. — Attorney fees should not be allowed when the amount involved is not shown, or when it does not appear that the said amount exceeds five hundred dollars, although the action is brought in a district court. Before a court can allow attorney fees it must conclusively appear that the subject-matter involved exceeds five hundred dollars.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. Luis Freyre Barbosa for the plaintiff.
    
      Mr. Juan Hernández Lopes for the defendant.
   Me. Justice Wole

delivered the opinion of the court.

Botli parties to the judgment in this case have appealed. The appeal of the complainant is numbered 1479, and the appeal of the defendant is numbered 1481. We cannot agree with the complainant and appellant that it is sufficient allegation of ownership in a suit for nullity of a posses-sory title and its record to say because he has a house on the land in question that he believed and believes that he has a title by prescription. The character of the prescription was not alleged. Nor was the land sufficiently described and we think the court below was justified in sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. The complaint must rely on its own averments and not on its relation to other suits. We see no reason to disturb the judgment in so far as it was adverse to the complainant.

The court in rendering judgment awarded costs but not attorney's fees because it did not appear what was the value of the matter in controversy nor that it exceeded five hundred dollars. We do not think that the amount involved was shown to exceed five hundred dollars and it makes no difference that the action was brought in the district court. The mere bringing of an action does not show that the amount in controversy was within the jurisdiction of the court, namely, above five hundred dollars. Before the court has a right to award fees it must appear as a fact that the amount involved is more than five hundred dollars. But we are not satisfied that there was such temerity on the part of the complainant as to justify the award of fees. The judgment appealed from must also be affirmed in this regard.

Affirmed.

Chief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.  