On the 2d of January, 1908, the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants, for the purpose of recovering the sum of  P1,700 as damages for the destruction of 500 banana plants, the greater portion fruit bearing, 100 "viga" plants, and 50 abaca plants.

The defendants  on the 22d of July,  1908, filed a general demurrer to the complaint, which demurrer was overruled by the lower court.

On the 26th of August, 1908, the defendants filed a general denial to  each and all of the facts set out  in the complaint and on  the 15th of July, 1909, the defendants filed a special  defense  in the  form  of an  amended answer or motion, alleging that the lower court was without jurisdiction to hear and determine  said  cause.

The cause was duly tried in the lower court and on the 7th of August, the Hon. Isidro Paredes rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff and  against the defendants, jointly and severally, ordering them to pay  to the  plaintiff the sum of P900, with costs.

From that  judgment  the defendants appealed to  this court and made the following assignments of error: 

"I. The lower court erred in holding to be proven the fact that the defendants went upon the plaintiff's land, described in the complaint, in the month of May, 1907; and in holding that it had jurisdiction to try this complaint. 

"II. The lower court also erred in holding that the plaintiff's action  in this case has not been prescribed."

With reference to the first  assignment of error the defendants and  appellants in their brief, filed in this court, make the following statement: 

"The evidence establishes  beyond all doubt the following facts: 

"That in  the month of May, 1897, the defendants  went upon a piece of land which the plaintiff says is his, and cut down 500 banana plants, 100 'viga' plants, and 50 abaca plants, worth approximately P700.  There is no evidence in the  record  showing where the aforesaid  tract of land is situated."

It will be noted by this admission of the appellants that the  defendants had committed the acts alleged in the complaint which resulted in  damages to the plaintiff.  It will be noted also by the above admission, that the special defense is that  the lower court had no jurisdiction, for the reason  that there was no proof that the  land in question was within the jurisdiction of the court.  The action was a personal action for damages done to land.  There may be some question as  to the  requirement that such an action shall be brought in the Court of First Instance within the jurisdiction of which the  land is located.   However, admitting that the action must be brought in the court within the jurisdiction of which the land  is located, even then it is asserted that  under the complaint which alleges that  the land was located in the "barrio of Ginagdanan, municipality of Argaw," that the court could take judicial notice of the fact that the  said land was within the jurisdiction of his court.   The court had a perfect  right to take judicial notice of the  fact that the municipality of Argaw was within his jurisdiction (sec. 275, Code of Procedure in Civil Actions), in the absence of an allegation that the  said barrio was Within the jurisdiction of the court.

With reference to the  other  error alleged to have been committed  by the lower court assigned in the first assignment of error, to wit; That the acts done by the defendants causing  damages to the  plaintiff were  done in the year 1897, the lower court in  his decision found that,  notwithstanding the fact that the witnesses for the plaintiff stated that said acts  causing damages were committed on the 8th of May, 1897,  that they intended to say on the 8th of May, 1907.  The lower court  in his decision gave strong reasons for  believing  that  when  some  of the witnesses for the plaintiff declared that the  acts complained of had been done in 1897, they intended  to say 1907,  We find no reason, after a full consideration of the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, taking into consideration the findings of fact by the lower court, to modify the decision of the lower court in any way, based upon the first assignment of error above quoted.

With reference to the second assignment of error above quoted, to  wit: That the cause of action was prescribed, it is sufficient to say in answer to this assignment of error, that  the question  of prescription was neither raised by demurrer nor answer in the lower court and  therefore can not be raised here.  The question of prescription can not be raised by demurrer.   It must be raised by answer.  (Domingo vs.  Osorio, 7 Phil.  Rep., 405.)   However, even  admitting that the  defense of prescription had  been made in the lower  court it could not be maintained for the reason that  the present cause is a personal action  and does  not prescribe until the lapse of fifteen years.  (Art.  1964, Civil Code.)   The action would not have been  prescribed even admitting that the damages were committed in 1897 instead of 1907.

We find no reason for modifying the judgment of  the lower court; therefore the same is hereby affirmed.

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