
    Ex Parte Rodríguez.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
    No. 70.
    Decided March 10, 1904.
    Dominion Title — Possession to Acquire the Same. — The quiet and peaceable possession of an estate by the petitioner for the period of five months, without other evidence, is not sufficient to justify a declaration of ownership of the same.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    This is a proceeding instituted in the District Court of San Jnan at the instance of Miguel Rodriguez Rivera for the purpose of establishing his ownership of a rural estate, which case is pending before us on appeal taken by counsel for the petitioner from the judgment rendered’ by said district court, which reads as follows:
    “Porto Rico, June 30, 1903. Miguel Rodríguez Rivera filed a petition stating that he is the owner and has possessed for over two months an estate in Carolina, barrio ‘ San Antón, ’ consisting of thirteen cuer--das of third-class land of which the boundaries were: On the east, lands belonging to the estate of Josefa Ruiz; on the north, the ‘San Antón’ brook; on the west, a creek separating said property from that of Miguel Fernández; and on the south, the aforesaid estate of Josefa Ruiz; which piece of land was valued at one hundred and sixty dollars; that he had acquired the same by purchase from Felipe Reyes, according to private document executed June 30, 1902, and as he had no written title thereto, he instituted proceedings to secure dominion title. The court admitted the petition and ordered the citation of the Fiscal, the persons from whom the property was acquired, and such as might have any property right therein, and the adjacent property owners, which being done, two witnesses testified at the proceedings that it was true that the property had been acquired by the petitioner from Reyes, and that he had been in the quiet and peaceable possession thereof, without stating the time during which it had been in the possession of the vendor, but that the petitioner had acquired it from Reyes five months prior to the institution of the proceedings. The court’s decision was to the following effect:
    “The evidence is not such as would justify the declaration of ownership applied for, inasmuch as possession by the petitioner for five months, or since he had acquired the property, without further evidence, is not enough to prove ownership thereof. The petition for the declaration of ownership applied for is dismissed. Approved and signed by the judges of the court, to which I certify. Juan Morera Martínez, Frank H. Richmond, José Tous Soto. — Luis Mendez Yaz.”
    From this decision the petitioner’s attorney took an appeal, which being admitted for a review and stay of proceedings, the record was forwarded to the Supreme Court with citation of the parties, and the appellant having appeared and the appeal having been heard, and a day set for the hearing on appeal, which took place, the Fiscal of the Supreme Court being present, while counsel for -appellant' failed to appear.
    
      
      Mr. Ginorio (Emigdio S.), for appellant.
    
      Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.
   Mb. Chief Justice Quiñones,

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

The findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the decision is based are accepted.

In view of article 395 of the Mortgage Law, the Judicial Order of April 4, 1899, and other provisions of the Civil Code in force in this Island, applicable to the case, we adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm the decision appealed from, with costs against appellant.

Justices Hernández, Figueras, Sulzbacher and MacLeary concurred.  