Domingo Florentino brought the present action for the recovery of ownership of a parcel of land eight hundred meters Jong by four hundred  meters wide, situated in the pueblo of Camalamingan, Cagayan de Luzon.   The plaintiff alleged  that when  he  desired  to enter  into the possession of the said property in  the  month of  August, 1907, after purchasing the same,  he could not do so  because he was prevented by Jose Cortes and Felipe Tuzon who were holding the land; and  in  his  brief he requested the Court of First Instance to sentence the defendants to deliver  to him the land he claimed, to pay him Pl,000 for loss and damages,  and the costs.

To prove his ownership, the plaintiff presented a private instrument executed, as it appears, on July 1, 1907, wherein record is made of  a sale to him, by Josef a  de Guzman, of a parcel of  land described in the said instrument.  Oral testimony  was adduced  by both sides, and the court concluded its  judgment as  follows:

"Neither does it appear from the  evidence,  to the satisfaction of the  court, that the  negrita  (the said Josef a de Guzman) occupied the land for a period of ten years prior to  July 26, 1904,  with all the  requisites prescribed by the Public Land Act, and inasmuch  as, in an action for the recovery of possession,  the  plaintiff must base his claim on the legality of his own right rather than  on the deficiency of the defendant's title,  the court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has not demonstrated, by a preponderance of  evidence, that  he possesses  a better right than the defendant to the land in controversy.

"The plaintiff in this case, Domingo Florentino, can not have a better right to the land  in question than that which the negrita, Josefa de Guzman, could have transmitted to him.   * *  *

"Moreover, the  court has carefully observed the conduct of the  plaintiff's witnesses  *  *  *  and is of the opinion that their statements should be received with the greatest caution; and, therefore,  notwithstanding the fact that the witnesses for the plaintiff were more numerous than those for the defendants,  the  weight and quality  of  the oral evidence is in  favor of the said defendants.

"Therefore,  the  court renders judgment for the defendants, Jose Cortes and Felipe Tuzon, and against the plaintiff, Domingo  Florentino, and  sentences the said plaintiff to the  payment of the costs."

The  plaintiff appealed  and, in the bill of exceptions forwarded to this  court, alleged three assignments of error:

1. Because the .defendants were not declared to be  in default;
   
   
2. Because it  was not held that Josefa de Guzman was the owner of the land purchased from her;
   
   
3. Because that part  of  the  land  illegally occupied by the defendants, and a reasonable sum as an indemnity for losses and damages, were not awarded to the plaintiff.

With regard to the first assignment, the trial court exercised its discretion and did  not  err.

With respect  to the second and  third assignments, the Supreme Court can not, without reason, make any findings contrary to those set forth  in the judgment of the lower court and the weight of the  evidence considered by it.

There is one thing which must be clearly laid down by this court:

The  rejection  of the claim of ownership for lack of title, and of that of possession for lack of proof, in the judgment of the lower court, of the  claim that such possession was held ten years  prior to July 26,  1904, by the grantor, Josefa  Guzman, are  held by this court to be  in accordance with law.

The  doctrine set up in the judgment of the lower court, that an action  for  the recovery of possession must be founded on  positive titles on the part of the plaintiff and not merely  on  negative  ones, or the lack or insufficiency of title on the part of the defendant, is correct and in accord with the  principles of law.  Such  an action  prosecuted between two persons can not operate to the  prejudice of the real owner  who is not  a party,  whether he be  some other private person, or the State, or the Insular  Government, as is apparently the case  in the present suit.

In affirming the judgment appealed from, properly disallowing the plaintiff's claim, it is  not the  sense of this court to concede true  and legitimate right of possession on the part of the  defendants.  Our affirmance is limited to the act of possessing.

The  judgment appealed from  is affirmed, with the costs against the appellant.

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