On July  22, 1908,  counsel  for Regino  Salacup  filed a complaint  in the Court  of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, alleging that Salacup  was the owner, by title  arising out of quiet, peaceful,  and uninterrupted possession  for more than thirty years, of rural real  property lying toward Nambaran on the  north and toward Mumud,  of the pueblo of Bacarra, Ilocos Norte,  on the south; that the said land has a perimeter of 445 meters and produces 10 uyones  of palay, approximately, per annum, and was formerly bounded  on the north  by  the property of Genaro Galam and Roman Galam,  now by  that  of Gregorio Bulusan and  Graciano Galam;  on  the east, formerly by that of Andres Dacuycuy and Ciriaco Visco, now by  that of Gregorio Bulusan; on the south, formerly by that  of the said Visco, now by that of Hilario  Magaoay; and on the west, formerly  by that  of Alvaro Galapon and Placido Butac, now by that of Antonio Acob; that  for the past  five years the defendant  had been arbitrarily  and illegally  detaining a portion of the land in question, measured from its  southern side,  which  part produces yearly about 1 uyon, 1 baar and 1 manojo  of palay; that by such detention the plaintiff had suffered loss and damage to the extent of 5 uyones, 5 baares, and 5 manojos of palay, which he failed to gather during the said five years, as the product of the said part of his land withheld from him as before stated, which product should be worth P55.50, at P10 an uyon.  The complaint concluded by asking that judgment be rendered in plaintiff's favor, declaring the said property to be of his exclusive ownership, and sentencing the defendant to make immediate delivery thereof  and to pay damages in the amount of 5 uyones, 5 baares, and 5 manojos of palay, or their cash value, P55.50, and the costs.

Defendant's counsel in his answer denied each and all of the allegations made in the preceding complaint, and set up, as a special defense, that the defendant was the true owner of the property described therein and had been in possession of the same for more than twenty years, which he  offered to  prove at the trial.

The case  having come to trial and testimony  having been furnished by both sides, the documents exhibited being attached to the record, the judge, on July 26, 1909, found inat the complaint had not been substantiated and absolved the defendant, without  special finding as to costs.  The plaintiff, on being notified of this judgment,  took exception and moved for  a  new trial, which motion  was overruled and exception was taken  by the appellant, who duly filed the proper bill of exceptions  which was certified and forwarded to the clerk of this court with a transcript of the evidence.

The purpose of this litigation is to recover rural property, unduly usurped some five years since, through the institution of the proper action for  recovery of title.

In  order that an action for the recovery of title may prosper, it is indispensable,  in accordance with the precedents  established   by   the  courts, that  the party who prosecutes it  fully prove, not only his ownership  of  the thing claimed, but also the identity of the same.

The plaintiff, Regino  Salacup, alleged that he had possessed the land  described in his complaint for more than twenty years, and for the purpose of proving his ownership exhibited a certified copy of a possessory information duly recorded in the registry ox property of the district of Ilocos Norte, on the 27th of  March, 1895, which title  does not appear to have been impugned, nor assailed as invalid.

A possessory information  title has the  same force and effect as have all other titles recognized by law, and a possessory  information recorded in the registry  of  property is pnma facie proof that the possessor of the land  to which it relates is the owner thereof.   (Inchausti &  Co. vs. The Commanding General of the  Division of the Philippines, 6 Phil, Rep., 556; Baldovino vs. Amenos, 9 Phil. Rep., 537.)

From the context of the said possessory information it is perfectly well proven that the land which was usurped by the defendant five years ago is included in the said  information and is a part of the first parcel  mentioned therein, which land is situated between the two places called Nambaran, to the north, and Mumud, to the south, of the district of Bacarra, and its old boundaries agree with those given in the complaint and by plaintiff's witnesses in their testimony, as well as with those contained in the record  of the ocular inspection.

This  inspection was made,  it is  true,  at  the request of the defendant's attorney.  The deputy  sheriff and the litigating parties with  their respective attorneys went  to the place where the property in question  is  situated and the deputy sheriff proceeded  to measure the land, the southern part of which it  is claimed was  usurped by the plaintiff.  This measurement shows the present boundaries to be, to the north, the properties of Gregorio Bulusan and Graciano Galan; to the  east, those of the said  Bulusan and Hilario  Magaoay; to the south,  that of the said Magaoay, and to the west, that of Antonio Acob.   It was also  ascertained that the property has a perimeter of 438 meters. The part of the  said land alleged to be unlawfully  withheld by  the defendant having likewise been measured, it was found that its boundaries are, to the north, the  property of Regino Salacup; to the  east and  south, that of Hilario Magaoay, and to the west, that of Alvaro Galapon.  These measurements confirm the averments made by the plaintiff in  his complaint, that the defendant usurped the southern part of plaintiff's land.   The property in question claimed by the defendant has a perimeter of 202 meters, and  according to the report of the deputy sheriff, who carried  out the above-mentioned proceedings,  which report was made pursuant to an order issued by the court and an agreement by the attorneys for both litigants,  the said land held by  the defendant, of 202 meters perimeter,  is included  within  the 438 meters  of plaintiff's  land, this lesser parcel being situated in the southern part of the greater  one designated by the plaintiff.

From the foregoing facts it is  clearly shown that  the plaintiff legally possessed the said real property that was usurped under claim of ownership, as proved by the possessory information  entered in  the registry of property, which he exhibited. The identity of the land  unlawfully held by the defendant has also been proved in a conclusive manner, and as the said defendant has in nowise substantiated his claim that he is the owner of the land  in question, the action instituted for the recovery of title is  unquestionably proper and restitution must be made of the property so unduly held, together with the products collected therefrom or  their value, inasmuch as it was proven at the trial that the defendant usurped the  said land and was  unlawfully holding  it without  either  title or  good reason, and consequently he could not acquire the  status of owner in good faith,  in  accordance with the provisions of article 433 of the Civil  Code.

It is, therefore, incontrovertible  that the plaintiff is  the owner of the  land in question, and accordingly he has a right of  action  against  the holder  and possessor of  the said land to recover the same, pursuant to the provisions of article 348 of the Civil Code.

For the foregoing reasons,  it is proper, in our opinion, with a reversal of the judgment appealed from, to condemn, as  we do hereby condemn the defendant, Sotero Rambac, to restore the aforesaid part of the land unlawfully held, measuring some 202 meters in perimeter, to Regino Salacup, who  is declared to be the owner thereof, together with  5 uyones,  5 baares,  and 5 manojos  of palay or their value, P55.60.   No special finding is made as to the costs in either instance.

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