This is an appeal from  a judgment of the Land Court, Hon. Simplicio del Rosario presiding, registering a parcel of land in the name of the petitioner, Alejandro Tecson, against the opposition of the Corporacidn  de PP. Dominicos, which claims that the land belongs to it.

The appellant  in  this  case  makes three assignments of error:

"First. The  pleading in opposition to a registration of land in the Court of Land Registration is sufficient ground in procedural law to raise the question of another action pending between the same parties over the same land.

"Second. A decision in favor of the defendant in an action for the recovery of mere possession  is not a decision  in relation to the ownership thereof.

"Third. In view of the proofs presented on the trial the overruling of the opposition of the  Corporation de PP. Dominicos is clearly unjust."

The purpose of the first assignment of error is evidently to raise the question of another action pending between the same parties over the same subject matter.  The learned counsel for the  appellant asserts that the Corporacion  de PP. Dominicos,  prior to the commencement of the present proceeding, had begun a  proceeding in the Court of Land Registration  for the purpose of registering the  land  in dispute in this controversy under Act No. 496, and that the petitioner in this case, Alejandro Tecson, appeared in that proceeding and filed  his opposition thereto, thereby joining issue  for  all the purposes of a trial.  This being so, the commencement of the present proceeding by Alejandro Tecson is, according to the contention of counsel for the appellant, the commencement of another action between the same parties over the same subject matter, something which the law does not permit.  In reply to this contention it is necessary to say only that this court has held heretofore that the jurisdiction of the Land Court extends no further than the Inscription of the land.described in its final decree mmi the enforcement of that decree, and that, even though the land described in the petition be found by the  court,  as between the petitioner and the opositor, to be the  property of the opponent, such land can not be inscribed in his name, the Land Court having, as we have said, no jurisdiction  or power to do  so.   It naturally and necessarily follows that the opponent, if he desires the  land  of which he claims ownership  to be registered  in accordance  with law, must begin a new proceeding in the Land Court for that purpose, (Foss vs. Atkins, 201 Mass., 158; Id., 204 Mass., 337; People. Ex Rel.  Smith vs. Crissman,  41 Colo., 450.)   The result is that two proceedings for the registration of the same land may be pending between the same parties in the same court at the same time; and they may, under order of the court, be  tried together.  The objection of the appellant upon this ground is, therefore, without merit.

The second error assigned is directed to that portion of the decision of the learned court below in which it refers to a decision  of the Hon.  Estanislao Yusay, judge of the Court  of First Instance of  Rizal, rendered in  an action brought by the Corporation de PP. Dominicos against several defendants, among  them Alejandro  Tecson,  the petitioner in  the  case at bar, for  the purpose  of recovering possession  of certain parcels of land,  among  them the land now in controversy, which was at that time occupied and claimed by said Alejandro Tecson as owner.   In his decision the learned court below in the action at bar referred to that decision  and attached to it  some importance.  It is  true that the  action appears  to have been for the  recovery of possession  merely, but the right to possession asserted  by the plaintiff in that case was  founded  upon its claim of ownership  of the Hacienda de Navotas, of which it claimed the land occupied by Alejandro Tecson was a part.  The plaintiff  in that  case attempted to  show,  and produced witnesses for that purpose, that Alejandro  Tecson was a tenant of the Hacienda de Navotas, owned by the plaintiff, and that having refused to pay rent, his eviction therefrom was sought.  The court  in that case found in favor of the defendant Alejandro Tecson and against the plaintiff.  The only thing we can gather from that decision is that plaintiff's right to possession was not superior to that of the defendant.  The trial court in  the case at bar did not rest its  conclusion upon the  decision in that case  but used it rather in support of his finding that the petitioner, Alejandro Tecson, had occupied the  land in question  adversely for many years and was its owner by virtue of prescription. This was an entirely proper use of that decision, it tending to demonstrate that even at and before the time of its rendition Tecson was occupying the land under a right superior to the Corporacion de PP. Dominicoa and probably under claim of ownership.

As to the third error assigned, it presents simply a question of fact.  We have examined the  cause thoroughly and read carefully the evidence produced on the trial.  After a thorough consideration of the whole case, we are unable to say that the conclusions of the learned trial court upon the facts are against the  fair preponderance of the evidence adduced.   The trial  court  in  the  opinion  upon  which its judgment in favor of  the petitioner  is founded  went into the  facts in detail.  He analyzed the testimony carefully and gave his reasons for the decision which he made.  So thoroughly and satisfactorily did he do this  that we do not feel called upon to  go into a detailed discussion  of the evidence here.  As  to  the  facts, we  base  our conclusions upon those stated in that opinion.

The assignments of error and the arguments made thereupon presenting no sufficient reason for the  reversal of the judgment of the court below,  that judgment is hereby affirmed, without special  finding as to costs.

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