
    Jiménez v. Borrás.
    Appeal from the District Court of Humaeao.
    No. 123.
    Decided April 26, 1904.
    Summary Proceedings — Costs—Losses and Damages — Return oe Value oe Products. — Summary proceedings to recover the possession of real property having been held to lie, a judgment against the wrongdoer for the payment of costs, damages and the return of the products which he may have received, follows as a legal consequence.
    STATEMENT OP THE CASE.
    This is a summary proceeding, instituted in the District Court of Humaeao by Pedro Jiménez Sicardó against Barto-lomé Borrás y Ginart, to recover possession of a rural estate. The case is pending before us on an appeal taken by the defendant, who was represented in this Supreme Court by Attorney Jacinto Texidor, Attorney Bafael López Lándrón having appeared as counsel on behalf of the respondent.
    The judgment rendered by the District Court of Humaeao reads as follows:
    “Judgment. — In the city of Humaeao, this twenty-fourth day of August, 1903, this cause for the recovery of real estate, instituted on behalf of Pedro Jimenez Sicardó against Bartolomé Borrás y Ginart, represented by Attorneys José R. Aponte Riera and Juan P. Yias Ochoteeo, respectively, came on to be heard.
    “On the 16th of June last Attorney José R. Aponte, as coun-., sel for Pedro Jiménez Sicardó, brought an action to recover the possession of real property against Bartolomé Borrás y Ginart, alleging that his client was in possession, in the name of the estate of Manuel Jiménez Córdova, of which he forms a part, of an estate situated in the barrio ‘Cañabón,’ municipal district of Caguas, composed of uplands, lowlands and ridges, having an area of approxi mately two hundred mierdas, and bounded on the west by lands of the estate of Antonio Guarch, on the north by lands of the estate of Salvador Vieta, on the east by lands of Messrs. Borrás Hermanos, and on the south by the Aguas Buenas road, as.far as the ‘Cagüitas’ river, which divides the estate from another estate of Fabiana Muñoz, now owned by Dr. José del C. Jiménez; that on the 21st of May last the said Bartolomé Borrás y Ginart, claiming to be the «attorney in fact of Manuel Díaz Caneja, the representative of the Carmelite nuns, made demand upon the coparcener of said estate, Antonio Jiménez, the agent of the possessor Pedro, for the immediate delivery to him of the said estate, which demand was forthwith energetically rejected; that said Borrás, being displeased and dissatisfied with said refusal, and being desirous of carrying out his unfounded pretensions in a more effectual manner, thereupon spoke to certain peons who were engaged in grubbing cane in a low stretch of ground abutting upon the river and road, and which forms part of the estate in question, ordering them to cease work, which they did, and finally entered upon the estate, where he built a small house for the use of the tenants; that in order to obtain the proper restitution ■ he finds himself under the necessity of instituting summary proceedings for the recovery of possession, in accordance with article 448 of the revised Civil Code, subdivision 2 of article 1629, and articles 1640 and 1650 of the Law of Civil Procedure; and that he tenders evidence concerning the following facts: 1. That Pedro Jiménez Sieardó is in possession, in the name of the estate of Jiménez Cordova, of which he forms part, of the real estate described; 2. That he was deprived of said possession by the resident and landowner, Bartolomé Borrás y Ginart, on the date and by the means hereinbefore set forth; and concluded with the prayer that the proposed testimony be admitted, and upon proof of the two matters referred to, that the parties be ordered summoned to an oral trial, and that the summary proceedings for the recovery of possession be finally sustained, that his client be forthwith reinstated in the possession of the property of which he has been deprived by said Borrás, and that the latter be adjudged to the payment of costs, expenses and damages, and the return of the value of the products which he may have received.
    -‘A day having been set for the taking of the proposed evidence, José Dolores Calderón, Nicasio Merced Ramos, Cleto Castro y Diaz, Odón Somonte, José Y. Esteras and Juan Ramírez testified as witnesses to the facts stated in the complaint; and the possession of the plaintiff and tbe deprivation thereof by Borrás having been established, a day was set for the trial, and the same having been continued at the instance of Attorney Aponte, it was again set for the 17th of the present month at nine o’clock a. m.
    “Upon the day fixed for the holding of the verbal trial, Attorney Jnan F. Vías Oehoteco, as counsel for Bartolomé Borrás y Ginart, presented a writing admitting the allegations of the complaint and requesting that judgment be rendered in accordance with the prayer of the complaint, but without taxing the costs against his client, pursuant to General Order 188 of 1899, and the court having fixed the twenty-second day of the present month at nine o’clock a. m. for the voting upon the judgment, and the parties having been cited, the voting took place on said date.
    “The required legal formalities have been observed in the conduct of this case.
    “The opinion of the court was prepared by Presiding Judge Salvador Fulladosa:
    “Although judgment for costs should not be rendered against a litigant who confesses the allegations of a pleading when the object thereof, as occurs in ordinary actions, is to punish him for obstinately persisting in the prosecution of his suit, it is not so in summary proceedings in which, being of a public character, the principal object of the judgment for costs is to reimburse the person ousted from possession for the expenses entailed upon him in restoring the preexisting state of right, so arbitrarily disturbed by the acts of the wrongdoer.
    “Rule 63 of General Order 118, relied upon, relates to ordinary trials, and therefore does not modify the declaration made by the Law of Civil Procedure with regard to summary proceedings.
    “The payment of costs, as well as other matters decided in summary proceedings, may, if meet in the premises, be made the subject of a return in the proper ordinary action if this point is covered by the judgment declaring the summary proceedings to be ineffectual.
    “We adjudge that summary proceedings will lie for the recovery of the possession of the property described in the first finding of fact, and of which the plaintiff was deprived, ordering that he be reinstated therein forthwith, judgment being entered against the dispossessor, Bartolomé Borrás y Ginart, for the payment of costs and damages, and for the return of the value of the products derived from the estate; the whole of this judgment to be without prejudice to the interests of third persons. Thus, by this our judgment, finally adjudging, do we pronounce, order and sign. — Salvador Fulladosa, Charles E. Foote, Ramón Quinones.”
    From this judgment counsel for Bartolomé Borrás y Gri-nart took an appeal, which was allowed; and the record having been forwarded to this Supreme Court, the parties appeared after citation. The record having been submitted to the parties for examination, a day was set for the hearing, which took place on the 20th of the present month, when the attorneys for both parties made arguments in support of their respective contentions, the attorney for Bartolomé Bo-rrás y Grinart having stated that the appeal was limited to that portion of the judgment ordering Borrás to pay the costs.
    
      Mr. Texidor, for appellant.
    
      Mr. López Lcmdrón, for respondent.
   Me. Justice Sulzbachee,

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

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

The summary proceedings instituted for the recovery of the property by Pedro Jiménez Sicardó having been sustained, and this adjudication upon said point not having been questioned on the appeal, the judgment for the payment of costs, damages, and the return of the value of the products which may have been received by the dispossessor, follows as a legal consequence, as is expressly provided by article 1656 of the Law of Civil Procedure, which article has not been repealed by General Order No. 118, series of 1899.

We adjudge that we ought to affirm and do affirm the judgment appealed from in all its parts, the costs of the appeal to be paid by the appellant.

The record of the District Court of Humacao is ordered to be returned with the proper certificate.

Chief Justice Quiñonés and Justices Hernández, Figue-ras and MacLeary concurred.  