Plaintiffs, the widow and children of one Juarez, who died in the year  1895, seek in this action  to recover possession of a certain house and  lot now occupied by the defendant municipality  as  a  municipal  building.  In the  year 1889, this property, which it is  admitted belonged at that time to Juarez, was levied  upon (embargado)  in the course of proceedings instituted by the provincial  military-political governor  to secure the payment of an alleged shortage of provincial   funds with which Juarez  was  charged.  At about the time when these proceedings were had, the municipal building was accidentally destroyed, and  the municipal authorities  moved  into  the house and lot in  question,  and have  continued  to  occupy  it ever since as  a municipal building.

Plaintiffs  insist  that this  occupation was an arbitrary exercise of power by the  municipal authorities, made possible by the fact that the local  authorities were charged with the levy of the embargo (attachment) ordered by the provincial  governor.  The defendant  municipality, on the other hand, alleges  that in taking and retaining possession of the property in question, it acted under and by virtue of an express agreement set out in writing, whereby Juarez agreed to turn over this property to the municipality;  the municipality, on its part,  agreeing to relieve Juarez of his responsibility  for  a substantial part  of the alleged shortage of provincial funds which was charged against him.

It is quite clear that in the absence  of some such agreement as that alleged by the defendant municipality, it had no lawful right to enter upon or to  retain possession of the property in question.  The evidence submitted  in  support of the execution of the alleged agreement in writing is not satisfactory.  It consists merely of  the somewhat uncertain oral testimony of a few  witnesses who say  that they were present when Juarez and the principalia (headmen) of the municipality executed the  document setting out the terms of the contract.   The document itself was not  produced, although one of the witnesses for the municipality  who testified as to its execution, swore that  it was filed with the municipal records in the municipal building.  It  does  not appear that any search for this  document was  made  in those records, although  an attempt was made  to  account for the failure to produce it by the introduction  of proof that an unsuccessful search was made for it in the provincial records in the provincial building, a part of  which had been destroyed by white ants.  The evidence of record convinces us that, at the time  when  the defendant municipality  took possession  of the property and for a considerable time thereafter,  the owner,  Juarez,  was engaged in an effort to secure  relief, through administrative proceedings, from an order of  the provincial governor .holding him responsible for the alleged shortage of provincial  funds; and we  are inclined to believe that his claim for relief was well founded. Under all the circumstances we do not think that the evidence  sustains a finding that Juarez executed the alleged written contract or that he entered into any agreement to sell or release the property in  question to the defendant municipality.

It is not  improbable,  however, that  Juarez consented  or at least did not offer any objection to the temporary occupation of his house by the municipality, pending the settlement of his claim for relief from the  responsibility for the alleged shortage, and we think the weight of the evidence fairly sustains a finding to that effect.   The precise terms and conditions upon  which the  municipality took  possession do  not appear from the evidence,  but we  are  well satisfied that it had no right to remain in possession against the wishes of the owner, after the levy of attachment  (embargo) had lost  its force.   The evidence  does not satisfactorily establish the date when this took place, though there can be no doubt that it occurred long prior to the  formal extrajudicial demand for possession which it appears was fruitlessly  made upon  the  defendant by the  owners of the property not later than the 31st of December, 1902.  Plaintiffs are, therefore, clearly entitled to a judgment for possession of the premises described in the complaint,  and to damages for the illegal detention thereof since the 1st day of January, 1903.

On the question of  the  amount  of damages we  do not think there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a judgment in this court for a specific amount in favor of the plaintiffs.  The evidence. wholly fails to  establish the allegations as to damages, other than the loss of the rental value of  the building throughout the period of its proven illegal occupation by the defendant.  There is some formal evidence  to  the effect that  the rental value of the building at the time  when the action was tried was P30 per month, but we do not think that this evidence is sufficient to sustain a judgment for  that amount throughout  the entire  period of illegal occupation.   As the judgment must be  reversed we think that, in the interests of justice, the  parties should have a further opportunity to present  evidence as  to the true rental value of the building during this period.

Twenty days hereafter let judgment be  entered reversing the judgment of the trial  court, without cosis to either party in this instance, and ten days thereafter let the record be returned to the court  below where  judgment  will  be entered in  favor  of the  plaintiffs  for possession  of  the premises described in the  complaint and for  damages  for the  unlawful  detention thereof  since January 1, 1903;  the amount of the damages,  however, to be strictly limited to the  fair rental value  of the premises  since that date,  as fixed by the court, after giving both parties  an opportunity to present  witnesses and to be heard on this question.  So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Mapa, Moreland, and Trent, JJ., concur.