On the 5th of March, 1902, the plaintiffs, Gregorio. Madariaga, Miguel Domingo, and Jose" Jose,  filed in the Court of First Instance, Province of Ilocos Norte, a civil suit against Manuel Castro for the purpose of determining their title to and recovering the  possession of six parcels of land, and for the further purpose of having the registered  title in the name  of  the defendant canceled.  These six  parcels of land are fully described with their metes and bounds in the first paragraph of the complaint.  After describing the lands and  giving their location, the  plaintiffs allege  that they,  together with other persons whose names are not given, entered into an agreement with one Fructuoso  Castro, father of the defendant, to have  the  title to  the lands in question together with other real property in that vicinity, adjusted; that in pursuance of this agreement, Fructuoso Castro,  in 1890, filed an application with the  authorities asking for a Government grant; that Fructuoso Castro, instead of  carrying out the agreement  to have the patent issued in the name of himself and the plaintiffs as co-owners, proceeded to have said patent issued in his own name only; that after  receiving this Government grant in July, 1891, and having it  duly registered in 1895,  he dispossessed them of these six parcels of land; that Fructuoso Castro, having died about the year 1896, the  defendant Manuel  Castro, being the only heir of his deceased father, succeeded to the ownership and possession of these lands; and that since they were  illegally dispossessed of this property  in 1894 they have not received the products of the same up to the time of filing this complaint.   They ask judgment, declaring  that they,  together with the defendant, are  the owners of the said lands; that the registration in the name of Fructupso Castro be canceled; for the sum of P1,340, the value of the products since 1896; and for the cost of the cause.

The defendant,  in his  answer, admitted and set  up the Government grant and the registration  of the same in the name of his father, and also the transmission of this property to himself upon his father's death.   He further alleges in his amended answer that he, in 1896, by means of a public document, sold these lands to one Manuel Ruiz for the sum of P1,000, and that since that time he has not  had possession npr had anything to do with said lands.

Subsequent  to the filing of this amended answer,  Manuel Ruiz was made party defendant and set up the same defense as Manuel Castro; that is to say, that the Government grant had been issued to Fructuoso Castro, and that Manuel Castro inherited this land on the death of his father and sold the same to him (Ruiz) for a valuable consideration.

Eusebio Tongson, Julian Javier, Ponciano Castro, Antonio  Bustamante, and Lorenzo Bonaan, having  intervened as third parties, alleged that they, together with other persons whose names are not given, and the defendant  Castro are  the  true and  lawful owners of the lands in dispute. They deny that the plaintiffs have any interest  in these lands and ask the court to render judgment annulling the registered title arid declaring themselves, including Castro, together with other unnamed persons to be the absolute owners of said lands.  Manuel Ruiz, after denying the  allegations of these interveners, asks that these lands, which had  heretofore been placed  in the hands of a receiver, be turned over to him on his presenting the necessary bond, and  that he be declared the lawful owner by reason of the purchase from the defendant Castro.

Subsequently thereto and on the 30th  of January, 1905, the interveners filed an amended complaint in which they include the names of their alleged co-owners, Adelaida Guerrero and thirteen others.  Up to this time,  the  only lands mentioned are the six parcels in Doro, civil case  No. 53.

On the 6th of February, 1905, Adelaida Guerrero and the thirteen other plaintiffs named therein, being the same parties as those mentioned in the complaint dated January 30, filed a complaint against Manuel Castro, civil case No. 356, alleging that they are the true owners of two parcels of land situated in Doro and Taguipuro, described as follows:

The first, situated in Doro, containing 10 hectares 16 ares and  20  centares, is bounded on  the north by the  Bacarra River, on the south by the Hacienda de Navotas, on the east by Estanislao Ruiz, on the west by Victoriano Castro.  The second, in Taguipuro, containing 9 hectares 75 ares and  89 centares, is bounded on  the north and south by  Laoag,  on the east by the lands of the deceased Vietoriano Castro, and on the west by Estanislao Ruiz.

The first parcel is the same land as that involved in civil case No. 53.   All of the first interveners in case No. 53 are plaintiffs  in this case.   The same allegations as were made in case No.  53 with reference to  the  obtaining by  Fructuoso Castro, father of the defendant Manuel Castro, of a Government  patent, are made in this case.   But the plaintiffs in this  case also  allege that when they discovered in 1894 that the patent had been issued to Fructuoso Castro they sought to have this serious error rectified by the administrative authorities and that they were then informed that they would have to go into court  to  have  this done.   The plaintiffs  ask judgment, declaring the title issued to Fructuoso Castro null  and void, and  for the sum of P2,880 damages,  being the value of the  products of  these  lands since they were dispossessed in 1894.

Manuel Ruiz, having been made a party defendant, in conjunction with the other defendant, denies all the allegations in the complaint and alleges as a special defense that he is the owner of the  lands in question  by reason of having purchased the same from the other defendant.

By agreement of the parties and the approval of the court, the two cases, Nos. 53 and 356, were joined and tried together.

The court filed the following decision on June 4, 1906: 

"In the Province of Ilocos Norte, P. I., in the time of the large municipalities, there were lands of considerable extent under the name of Estancia  de Navotas,  which the Government  had established under certain conditions for the pasturage of the animals of said province and the sustenance of a  garrison in Lepanto,  P.  I.

"This Estancia included the lands of the sitios called Navotas, Doro. Grande, Doro Pequefio, Taguipuro, etc., of the municipality  of Laoag of the said province, and which was abolished before the inauguration of the civil governments in these Islands in the  year  1886  and said lands occupied equally by innumerable families for the cultivation  of rice.

"By agreement of the many occupants of the part of said abolished Estancia called Doro Pequeiio and  Taguipuro, their land was divided  into five parts,  so  that Victoriano Castro, Montano Guerrero, Estanislao Ruiz, Eduardo Fontanilla, and Fructuoso Castro might petition the govenment for the title to each  part, and when in the year 1891 five titles were issued in favor of and in the exclusive name of  the respective parties above mentioned, these all  later took possession of the  said lands and ejected the occupants.

"The land in Doro whose title was issued in tne name of Fructuoso Castro,  measures  10  hectares 16  ares and  20 centares, and is bounded on the north by the Bacarra River, on the east by the land of Estanislao Ruiz,  on  the south by the lands of Navotas, and on the west  by the land of Victoriano Castro.

"The plaintiffs and  interveners should not be considered the  owners of  the said land situated in Doro, because,  although they all occupied it jointly, they did not comply with the provisions of the law; and for this reason  they lack the proper title, which, although they tried to obtain, they were not able to secure.

"If the title of Fructuoso Castro is invalid, and if none of the parties interested  in this  case own  the land,  its reversion to the State must necessarily follow, without prejudice, however, to the right of  purchase from the  Government in the form provided by the law.

"As, during  the period of so many years, the land had passed into the hands of the intervener ManueJ Ruiz,  he should be entitled to the products received therefrom.

"It does not  appear that titles were issued  for the  land in Taguipuro in the municipality of Laoag, Ilocos Norte,  as set  forth in the complaint of the interveners Eusebio Tongson and others, as was the case in Doro, and none of the evidence submitted touches this point.

"In view of all the foregoing, the court declares the title issued by the Government in the name of Fructuoso Castro to be null and void, and this decision shall be  noted in the inscription of said title in the registry of deeds,   The court also dismisses  the  claims  of the plaintiffs and  the interveners and decrees the sale made by the defendant Manuel Castro to the intervener Manuel Reyes  to be also null and void."

All the parties except the  original  plaintiffs in case No. 53 appealed and make the following assignments of errors f

"PLAINTIFFS.

"1. The  court erred in considering that  Eusebio Tongson, Adelaida Guerrero, and  their co-plaintiffs were not the owners of the lands in question.

"2. The court also erred in declaring that said lands were and are the property of the State.

"3. The  court likewise erred in not ruling  that Manuel Castro is obliged to recognize the co-ownership of the lands in question of Eusebio Tongson and his co-partners.

"4. The  court also erred in not declaring null and void the sale of the said lands made by Manuel Castro in favor of Manuel Ruiz.

"5. The  court erred  lastly in failing  to make a decision regarding the land in Taguipuro."

"DEFENDANTS.

"1. The court erred in declaring null and void the title of the property duly recorded in the registry of deeds issued by the Spanish Government in favor of Fructuoso Castro, now deceased, father of the defendant Manuel Castro.

"2. The court erred in declaring that the land in Doro covered by said deed belongs to the State and reverts to it.

"3. The court erred in not declaring the land in Doro to belong to the third party, Manuel Ruiz, transferred to him by virtue of the sale executed  by the defendant  Manuel Castro, son of the deceased Fructuoso Castro."

Counsel for the plaintiffs, on page 14 of his printed brief, says: "The lands of Doro and of Taguipuro are included in the title issued in the name of Fructuoso Castro  only, and the recovery of all of them (the lands)  is sought in this complaint."

Counsel for  the defendants, in his printed argument in support of his  assignments of error, nowhere mentions the lands situated  in Taguipuro, but only asks this court to reverse the judgment appealed from and declare the lands situated in Doro to be the exclusive property of the defendant Ruiz.  The defendants do not now claim or pretend to have any interest in the lands in Taguipuro.  The trial court found as a fact that it had not been shown that a Government grant had been issued for the lands in Taguipuro.

The certificate issued by the registrar of deeds, the. public document of purchase and sale from Castro to Ruiz, and the judicial act of fixing  the boundaries and monuments refer only to the 10 hectares 16 ares and 20 centares situated in Doro.   There is nothing in the record to show that the defendants have ever had possession or claimed ownership of the lands in Taguipuro, except the mere allegations in the complaint,  and these allegations are specifically denied in the answer.

After an examination of the entire record before us and taking into consideration  the position  of counsel for  the defendants with reference to this parcel of land, we can not say that the court erred in making the above findings of fact.  It was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to establish their case by competent testimony. This they entirely failed to do.  The court so found, yet it failed to pronounce judgment.  It was  the plain duty of  the court to render  judgment  in favor of the defendants, dismissing the complaint with reference  to the lands in Taguipuro.  If parties to a suit fail, after a fair and full opportunity, to present  proof with reference  to the subject matter in litigation, the  court is not by  any  means justified in declining to pronounce judgment.

With  reference  to  the  lands, in Doro,  counsel for the plaintiffs insists that they, together with the deceased Fructuoso Castro, had been for a long time prior  to the year 1890 occupying said lands  as coowners; that after a  clear and positive agreement, Fructuoso Castro obligated himself to petition for and obtain a title from the State in the name of all of them and himself  to said lands; that Castro, in violation of this agreement, obtained the title  in his own name only; that they,  on  discovering this fact  and before the title was finally registered, filed a petition with the administrative authorities, asking  that  the title thus issued be corrected so as to include their names as coowners; and that  said authorities declined to grant their request and informed them that they would have to obtain  relief from the courts.

The deceased, Fructuoso Castro, on the 21st day of April, 1890, addressed the following communication to the president  of the provincial board which had charge of the adjustment of titles:

 

"Don Fructuoso Castro, a sexagenarian, born and residing in this capital, whose personal cedula for the current  year I have the honor to forward herewith, with all  submission and respect presented himself to me and said: 1, together with  my co-owners, Patricio Tamayo, Pio Foronda,  and others, possess a field and garden in the sitios called Doro vel Caraoaoi and Taguipuro which  came into our possession by  inheritance, whose ownership and enjoyment we have had for more than the last forty years without interruption.   The  boundaries  and area  agree approximately with the following  description:   *  *  * ' "

This communication was signed by the  deceased, Fructuoso Castro, and formed the basis for the adjustment of the title, which resulted in the issuance by  the authorities of a grant to the lands in Doro to the petitioner.  On receipt  of  this document, the  authorities  proceeded in  due form as provided by law and granted the petitioner a patent which was duly registered  in 1895.  The petitioner Castro admitted and recognized at the time he  started  these proceedings  that not only Tamayo, Foronda, and others were with himself in possession  of these lands and had been for some forty years, but also that he  and the said parties were co-owners.   The Government grant was issued to Castro in 1891.  Pio Foronda filed a protest on the 16th of February, 1894, with  the adjustment  board which  had issued this patent.   In this protest, Foronda set  up the fact that he and others,  together with Castro,  were not only possessors but co-owners of the lands  in Doro and asked the board to rectify or correct the title and issue the same in all of their names as such  co-owners.   The board referred this petition to the provincial fiscal, who rendered the following opinion:

"The right of Foronda and his  associates is unquestionable as appears from the first to the last page of this record, but the claim should now be made  before the courts; and to that end, and if he so requests it, Foronda  must be given a copy of the  material testimony."

While it is true that Fructuoso Castro agreed to obtain from the Spanish Government a title in the  name of himself and his  co-possessors to the  land in question, this  agreement was not in  writing and only appears  to have been established by the oral testimony and  the  statements made in Castro's petition.  The record fails to disclose why Foronda and the other interested parties did not pursue their remedy in court in  1894 before the Government grant was finally registered.  It  must be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary,  that  those  interested parties abandoned their rights or  entered into some kinds of  settlement with Castro; otherwise, they would have sought to prevent the inscribing of this title in the property register.

It is a fact, not denied, that the defendant Manuel Ruiz purchased this land from his codefendant Manuel Castro in the year 1896,  and that Castro at that time was in possession  of the  land under the grant  from the Spanish Government, which grant  was duly inscribed in the land register.  These  property  rights  of  Manuel  Ruiz,  who purchased this land from Castro, who held  a duly inscribed title thereto, can in no wise be affected by the terms of the unrecorded agreement between the  vendor's  father and third parties. (Agonoy vs. Ruiz, 11 Phil. Rep.,  204.)

The court declared this title or Government grant issued to Fructuoso Castro null and void on the ground that  it had  been issued on the false presumption that the grantee Caatro  was in possession of  the land at the time it was issued,  and the court held further that neither the plaintiffs nor  the defendant  Manuel Castro, nor  Manuel Ruiz. who purchased from Castro, had any title to the land, because  none of them had complied  with the provisions of law  touching the issuance and perfection of titles to public lands.  The court then declared the land  in question to be the property of the State, annulled the title issued to Fructuoso Castro and also  the transfer made by Manuel Castro to Manuel Ruiz,  and directed  a note  to this effect to be entered upon the register of property wherein it was inscribed.  The State is not a party to this action, nor did it pray for a cancellation of  said title.  Hence,  the trial judge in declaring this title null and void and the land in question the property of the State, clearly  exceeded  his authority.

It appears that the land in question has been placed in the hands of a receiver by the trial court, pending the outcome of this action;  but we  are clearly of the  opinion, in the light of all the facts as they appear from the  undisputed allegations of the parties, the documentary  evidence, and the findings of the trial court, that the appointment of such a receiver was wholly uncalled for, and that he should be discharged forthwith and the possession of  the  land  returned to the defendant Ruiz.

Let judgment be entered in  accordance with this opinion, reversing the judgment of tne trial court and directing the judge of  that  court  to  discharge  forthwith  the receiver heretofore appointed, with instructions to return  the land to the  possession  of Manuel Ruiz,  without  costs.   So ordered.

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