The purpose of the present action was to recover of the defendants the possession of a parcel of land particularly described in  paragraph 2 of the complaint.  The action was  commenced on the 2d day of January, 1909.  To the complaint the defendant  demurred, which demurrer was sustained by the lower court.  On the 16th day of September, 1909, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, to which the defendant presented an answer setting up a general and special defense.  The plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of the land and  had been in possession  of the same for forty years, and  that the defendants,  on the  17th day  of September, 1908, had interfered with  his  possession.  The plaintiff  alleged that he had obtained  title to the land by inheritance from  his parents.  The defendants alleged that they were the owners of the land; that they  had acquired the same by inheritance, and that their parents had been in the quiet  and peaceable  possession of said land since the year 1886.

Upon the issue thus presented, the cause  was brought on for trial.  After hearing the evidence, the Honorable George  N. Hurd found that the plaintiff was the owner of the land in question;  that the defendants had  caused damages to the possession of the plaintiff in the sum  of 80 cents, and rendered a judgment against the defendants and  in favor of the plaintiff for the restitution of the possession of the land, together  with a judgment for damages in the sum of 80 cents and costs.  From that  judgment the defendants appealed to this court and made several assignments of error, the first and  second of which  present questions of fact only.   The appellant, under his first and second assignments  of error, argues that  the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause was not sufficient to show that the plaintiff was the owner of the land in question.

After a careful  examination of the evidence, we have reached the conclusion that a preponderance of  the  proof adduced shows that the plaintiff is the owner of the  property in question, particularly described in  the complaint, and that  he  inherited the same  from his father and has occupied the same for a period of nearly forty years.

The third assignment of error relates to the admissibility of a document in  the form  of a possessory information. Said document was offered in evidence by the defendants. Objection was  made to this admissibility.   The court sustained the objection upon two grounds, first, that the description of the land in said document did not include the land in question and, second, for the reason that said possessory information had not been registered in the registry of property.  If it is true that said possessory information did not include the land  in question, certainly it was not admissible as evidence in support of the contention of the defendants and the lower court committed no error in refusing to admit it as proof.   An examination of said possessory information has  been made and it  seems clear to us that the same does not contain a description of the land in question.  Said  possessory information  was dated in February, 1895.  This action was commenced in January, 1909, or nearly fourteen years after the date when the defendants claim they possessed the land in  question.   The proof shows that the  plaintiff had  been in possession of the parcel of land described in the complaint for a period of nearly forty years.  Accepting the finding of fact  made by the lower court that the plaintiff had been in possession of the land for such a long time, we are forced to the conclusion  that  the defendants  did  not,  until  very recently, believe that their possessory information included the land in question, or otherwise they would have  made claim to the same before.  The first reason given by the lower  court was sufficient for not admitting the possessory information as proof.  That being true, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the second reason  given by the  lower court for not considering  the possessory  information  as  proof against the plaintiff, it being sufficient to say that, in view of the fact that said possessory  information was not registered, it could in no way affect the right, title, or interest of third innocent parties.

After a careful examination of the record brought to this court,  we are persuaded that the judgment  of the  lower court is fully justified, both by the proof adduced during the trial of the cause and the law applicable  thereto; at least that part of his judgment in which he enjoined the defendants from further interfering with or molesting the plaintiff in his possession of the parcel of and in question. Therefore, that part of the judgment of the lower court in which  he  enjoined the defendants from interfering  with the plaintiff in his possession of the parcel of land in question is hereby affirmed, with costs.  So ordered.

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