In the present suit for recovery of a parcel of land judgment was rendered  in first instance for  defendant, and plaintiff appealed.

Summing up the evidence in the judgment appealed from the court holds: 

"It has  been established by the  oral and documentary evidence adduced by the  litigants that the parcel  of land in question was acquired from the  State by a free grant, first by  the plaintiff's father and afterwards by himself; then it was abandoned, in which condition, and with permission from competent authority first had, it was  cleared, cultivated and  occupied by the defendant continuously for many years to date."

The first part  of this finding is in accordance with the evidence and must therefore be sustained, for it is satisfactorily proven, from the composition title presented by the plaintiff, that he obtained from the State on July 26, 1898, a grant of ownership of the land which is the  subject of the complaint,  along  with several other parcels  described in said title.

But it  is incorrect that the plaintiff has abandoned said land,  as averred in the final part  of the above findings in the judgment appealed from; and  still more incorrect if it is intended to  signify  thereby, as  appears, that  he has renounced his ownership of said land.  There is no proof of such abandonment.  According to the lower court,  "a proof of this is the fact stated in the complaint that the defendant has held the  land since 1898 and ceased to pay rent in 1901.   If the land (it adds) had not been abandoned; by him who considers himself its owner, how is it that he. ceased to derive benefit from  it and only claimed  it after nine years?"   It is proven by the testimony of three witnesses that the plaintiff let the land in question out on; shares to the defendant in the year 1898, and that in said year and the  two succeeding ones he  received from the defendant half of the crop therefrom, which was  the condition of the tenancy on shares; but the defendant has failed to fulfill this condition since the year 1901.

There is no definite record as to what extrajudicial action the plaintiff has taken to recover possession of the  land off to secure the half of the crop that he should receive as owners before concluding to institute the present suit for recovery in 1909; but it is certain that he performed no act which might signify his  intention or purpose of abandoning said parcel of land, as indicated in the judgment appealed from,: for such can not be inferred from the fact that he has filed no judicial claim during nine years for the nonfulfillment by his tenant, the defendant herein, of the contract of tenancy on shares.  This  fact  may  impute to  him  more  or less serious negligence in looking out for his interests; but in no way can it be construed as a renunciation, even by implication,  of his right of ownership; and much less can it fe6 regarded as legal ground for depriving him of such right; not even lost  by prescription,  which was not averred, as sufficient time has not elapsed for this to take place according to law.

The statement in the judgment appealed  from that the defendant, as  a result of the alleged abandonment by the plaintiff, cleared,  cultivated  and  has  been occupying land in question for many  years  continuously to date permission of  competent authority  first had, is not supported in  any way by the evidence in the case.  The permission referred to in that part of the sentence is a written authorization issued by the gobernadorcillo of the town of Dolores, Abra, Ilocos Sur, to the defendant herein and other individuals to transplant  rice to some fields which were said to be abandoned in the sitios called Daquigan, Caguang, Putu,  Panday, Sungol, Lassaogan, Rubica, and Abar.  But this authorization is dated April 10, 1885, while the composition title whereby the defendant obtained from the State ownership of the land in question was  issued only on July 26,  1898.  This  being true, if the plaintiff had not yet obtained ownership of the said land in  1885, it is  evident that there is no room for supposing that he had then abandoned  it and that as a consequence of his abandonment the defendant  began  to occupy and cultivate it in said  year, 1885, for the simple reason that one can not abandon what he does not possess.  The authorization of the gobernadorcillo of Dolores hardly refers to the land in  litigation, for no  mention  whatsoever is made  therein of the  sitio of Oangoang, where this land is situated.  And  if it did refer to this same land, then it was effectively annulled and cancelled  by the grant made later to the plaintiff by the  State through the composition title of 1898 which has been mentioned; every one knows that only  the State  can  convey ownership of public land to private parties.

In the absence of adequate evidence showing the quantity of products the defendant has  secured  from the  land in question during the years that have elapsed since 1901, there is no basis for computing the half  the plaintiff should receive according to the alleged contract of tenancy  on shares, so no finding can be made on this point. The  judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the defendant ordered to restore to the  plaintiff the parcel of land which is the subject of the complaint, with the  costs in first instance against the said defendant, and no  special findings as to the costs in  this instance.  So ordered.

Torres, Johnson, Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.