
    Ex Parte Wenar.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
    No. 91.
    Decided February 15, 1904.
    Ownership — Prescription.—Possession for sis or more years, in good faith and with proper title, is sufficient to acquire ownership to real property by prescription.
    Id. — Good Faith. — Good faith is always presumed, and the present possessor of land may add to his period of possession the time of occupancy of the former possessor.
    Id. — Proper Title. — A proper title is one which is sufficient to convey ownership, provided the grantor is vested therewith, and this fact must be established to the satisfaction of the court.
    
      Sufficiency of Title — Evidence—Province of Court. — The sufficiency of the evidence to determine the nature of a title to real estate comes exclusively within the province of the court.
    STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
    This is a proceeding instituted in the District Court of San Juan at the instance of Joseph Wenar for the purpose of establishing ownership of a parcel of land, pending before us on appeal by counsel for the petitioner, taken from the decision of aforesaid district court, which reads as follows:
    ‘ ‘ San Juan, August fourth, one thousand nine hundred and three. Joseph Wenar, through his attorney, Freire Barbosa, instituted proceedings in this court to establish his ownership of a farm situated in barrio ‘Candelaria’ of Bayamón, formerly Toa Baja, consisting of twenty-eight cuerdas of land, stating that he had no written title of ownership. ITe requested the examination of witnesses, which was done, after having cited the Fiscal, the previous possessor, the adjoining landholders and such unknown persons as might be prejudiced by the declaration of ownership, the latter through edicts published three times in ‘The Puerto Rico Sun,’ a newspaper of San Juan. Three witnesses having been examined by the municipal judge of Bayamón, commissioned therefor by this court, testified that the petitioner, to their knowledge, had been two years in possession of the farm in question, which he had acquired from Teresa Pinto y Matos, who had been in the quiet and undisturbed possession thereof, as owner, for over twenty years, both having possessed the farm in good faith and with a proper title. The decision of the court was as follows:
    “Possession for six or more years, in good faith and with a proper title, is sufficient for the prescription of ownership, according to the judicial order of April 4, 1899, but in the present case, although there is possession for twenty-two years, with good faith, since the present possessor can add to the time of his possession that of the previous possessor, and good faith is always presumed, yet possession with a proper title has been of only two years, dating from the time the petitioner purchased the farm from Teresa Pinto, the title with which the latter held possession not being known, for which reason it is impossible to determine whether said title was a proper one or not, that is to say, whether or not it was sufficient for the purpose of a transfer of ownership, upon the supposition that the alienator had such a title. The fact that the witnesses testify that both the previous and present possessor held with a proper title is not sufficient for the court to find that such was the case; for the appreciation of the title, that is to say, the determination as to whether it is a proper one or not, appertains exclusively to the jurisdiction of this court, the witnesses being confined to stating the kind of title by which the possessor acquired the property, namely, whether it was by gift, inheritance, exchange, purchase and sale or other similar means; and, furthermore, the witnesses have failed to give the ground upon which, their knowledge is based. For the foregoing reasons, after weighing with sound judgment the evidence submitted, this must be held insufficient to establish the ownership claimed. In view of articles 395 of the Mortgage Law and aforementioned General Order, we adjudge that the declaration of ownership which forms the subject-matter of these proceedings must be refused.
    “Concurred in and signed by the judges of the court, to which I certify. I dissent and hold that the declaration of ownership should be made. Juan Morera Martínez, Frank PI. Richmond, José Tous Soto. — Luis Méndez Yaz.”
    From this decision counsel for petitioner entered an appeal, which was admitted for review and stay of proceedings. The papers were then forwarded to this court, with citation of the parties, and the appellant appearing, the appeal was perfected and a day set for the hearing thereof, at which the Fiscal of the Supreme Court appeared, but not counsel for appellant.
    
      Mr. Freire Barbosa {Luis), for appellant.
    
      Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.-
   Mr. Chief Justice Quiñones,

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

The findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the decision appealed from are accepted.

In view of article 395 of the Mortgage Law and Judicial Order of April 4, 1899, we adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm the decision appealed from, with costs against appellant.

Justices Hernández, Figueras and MacLeary concurred.

Mr. Justice Sulzbacker did not sit at the bearing of this case.  