
    Ex Parte Dávila.
    Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
    No. 76.
    Decided May 12, 1904.
    Dominion Title — Written or Recordable Title. — The supplementary means of establishing the ownership of real property, by virtue of the proceedings referred to in title XIV of the Mortgage Law, may be availed of by landowners who have no written title of ownership, as well as by those who have titles which are not capable of being recorded in the Registry, but in this latter case it is necessary to prove the causes which prevent the recording of the title.
    
      Id. — POSSESSION to Acquire Same — Title—Prescription.—In order to acquire tie ownership of real property by ordinary prescription, it is necessary to prove with precision the time of possession and the nature of the title by which the property is held.
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
    This is a proceeding instituted in the District Court of San Jnan by Attorney Emigdio S. Ginorio, on behalf of Casi-miro Dávila y Rodríguez, for the purpose of establishing the ownership of a rural estate. The case is pending before ns on an appeal taken by the petitioner from the judgment rendered by the said district court, which reads as follows:
    “San Juan, Porto Rico, June 1, 1903. Attorney Emigdio S. Gi-norio makes application, on behalf of Casimiro Dávila y Rodriguez, to have the ownership of a rural estate having an area of thirty-sis cuerdas, situated-in barrio ‘Barrasa,’ of Carolina, declared in his favor, ‘on the ground that he has no recordable title of ownership.’
    “The present proceedings were carried on after hearing the Fiscal, the other legal formalities having been complied with.
    “Landowners who have no written title of ownership .can only have recourse to the supplementary means of proving ownership by virtue of the proceedings prescribed by title XIV of the Mortgage Law, and although it may be contended that a title which is absolutely not capable of being recorded should be held equivalent to a lack of the same, the fact is that the causes which prevent the recording of the title, if any, have not been proven or even alleged.
    “Having examined article 395 of the Mortgage Law, the declaration of ownership applied for is denied on the ground that the same has not been established. It was so ordered and signed by the court. I ecrtify: Juan Morera Martínez, Frank H. Richmond, José Tous Soto. — Luis Méndez Yaz.”
    From this judgment counsel for the petitioner, Casimiro Dávila, took an appeal, winch was freely admitted both for a review and stay of proceedings/ and the record having been forwarded to this court, the parties having been cited, 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. Ginorio, 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.

Moreover, the witnesses Antonio Mellado y Baez, José Alvarez García and Carlos Davis Ilarrasa, produced by the petitioner, only testified that it was true and that they knew of their own knowledge that Casimiro Dávila y Rodríguez, by whom they were introduced, had the absolute quiet and peaceable ownership of the thirty-six cuerdas of land described in the petition of the claimant, and that he acquired the same in the proportion, from the persons, and in the manner set forth in said petition.

The conclusions of law contained in said judgment are likewise accepted.

. It is not proper to' make the declaration of ownership applied for by the petitioner, Casimiro Dávila, for a further reason, inasmuch as the witnesses produced merely testify that lie is the absolute owner of the thirty-six cuerdas of land in question, but without determining precisely the time he has been in possession, nor the time his predecessors were in possession, nor whether or not they had a title, and of what it consisted — which requirements are necessary to prove the acquisition by prescription of the ownership of real property.

In view of article 395 of the Mortgage Law, and articles 1940, 1941 and 1954 of the old Civil Code; and the Judicial Order of April 4,1899, 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.  