On the 31st day of August, 1908, the plaintiff presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration for the purpose of obtaining the registration, under the torrens system,  of three parcels of land, particularly described in paragraph 1 of the complaint.  The registration of said parcels of land was opposed by the said defendants and appellees.

The plaintiff alleges that it had acquired said property by reason of its immemorial occupation of the same.

After hearing the  evidence, the  Honorable James A. Ostrand, auxiliary judge of the Court of Land Registration, in a carefully prepared opinion, reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled to have said parcels  of land registered in its name.  The dispositive part of said decision is  as follows: "It has not been proved that the lands above  mentioned were granted  to  the  municipality,  as patrimonial property,  by the state, nor  has it been shown that  they  were used for  municipal  purposes, properly speaking.  Giving to the decision  of the Supreme Court  of these Islands in the case of the Municipality of Tacloban ". The  Director of Lands  (18 Phil. Rep., 201) the logical interpretation  it requires, this court can  pursue no other course than to sustain the adverse claim of the Director  of Lands and deny the petition.  (See also Valenton vs. Murciano, 3 Phil. Rep., 537.)  The petition in this ease is there- fore denied.   So ordered."

From that decision  the plaintiff appealed to this court. The appeal, presents a question  of fact only.

After an examination of the record brought to this court, we are convinced that the facts stated  in the decision of the lower court are in accordance with a preponderance of the proof adduced during the trial of the cause.  The facts in the present case are very analogous to the facts in the case of the Municipality of Tacloban vs.  The Director of Lands (18 Phil.  Rep.,  201).  In that case this court said:

"The mere fact that the municipality of Tacloban continued to charge and collect rents from the persons who built houses upon and occupied portions of the same land is not proof that said municipality was the  proprietor,  for, as it had erected thereon no building intended for the service of the pueblo a circumstance which,  had it existed, would have led to the presumption that, in obtaining permission  to erect the building, it also obtained a grant, if only an implied one, of the land, from the Government in the name of the state in order that the  said  municipality may be deemed to be the owner of the land in question, it  must prove that an express grant of the said land, as one of the properties  that form a part of its patrimony, was made to it by the Government."

(Municipality of Luzuriaga vs. The Director of Lands, 24 Phil. Rep., 193, 201.)

After a careful examination of the  evidence brought  to this court, we are of the opinion and so hold that the proof adduced by the petitioner  (the municipality) is not  sufficient to justify the conclusion that it is the owner in fee simple of the land in question and therefore is not entitled to have the same registered under the torrens system.   The judgment of the lower court is therefore hereby affirmed, with costs.  So ordered.

Arellano, C.  J., Torres, Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.