The plaintiffs in this case are Timoteo, Ana, and Eleuterio Balatian, the children of Tomas Balatian, who was the only son of Pedro Balatian.  Pedro Balatian died on November 30,  1897, and Tomas Balatian on September 15, 1903.

On November 21, 1908, the plaintiffs filed their complaint in which they  alleged that, while they were in possession of three parcels of land located in two sitios of the municipality of Vintar, Ilocos Norte, inherited from their father, and by the latter from his father, Nicomedes Agra usurped the said land in July of the same year.   They therefore prayed that these  properties be restored to them, together with the products  collected  therefrom during the course of the litigation.

The defendant answered the complaint, denying the aforementioned  facts therein set forth and alleged that he had acquired the said  parcels of land by purchase from  their previous owner, Bernabe Foronda.

The Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, which  tried this case, found the following facts to have  been proven: (1)  Pedro Balatian's ownership of the three  parcels of land in question;  (2)  the  succession  of the only son of Pedro Balatian, who was Tomas Balatian, to the ownership of the said three parcels; (3) the succession, in turn,  of the three  said  children of Tomas Balatian to  the  same three parcels of land which  are  now sued for;  and (4) the usurpation committed by the defendant.   The evidence introduced relative to this last fact was  verbal, and to the first three preceding ones, both oral and documentary.

The court found that the  plaintiffs were  the legitimate owners of  the three parcels of land described in the complaint and ordered the  defendant to restore the same  to them,  but  made no finding  with regard to  the  products thereof, for lack of proof as to their  quantity and quality, and no special finding as to the costs.

This judgment having been appealed from and the bill  of exceptions  forwarded to this court,  it is found  that the following assignments of error are alleged against it:

1.  The finding that Tomas Balatian succeeded to his father in the ownership of the said lands;
   
   
2.  The finding that the plaintiffs were the sole heirs  of their father, Tomas Balatian;
   
   
3.  The finding that the plaintiffs, and not the defendant, were the owners of the lands in question; and
   
   
4. Not to have found  that  the  documents presented by the defendant were valid.

Disregarding the first two  assignments of  error, which apparently can not be matters of discussion in this case, inasmuch as the defendant  does not claim to be a party to the successions concerned herein, and confining ourselves to the last two, the only ones that are relevant, we find:

(1)  That the proof of  the plaintiffs' ownership, as found by the trial court, lies in a title by composition  with the State, obtained by Pedro Balatian on July 26, 1895, and recorded in the registry  of property of Ilocos Norte;  (2) that this title comprises seventeen parcels of land, the first, second, and sixteenth of which are those now in dispute; and (3) that the reason  why they are claimed by the defendant is  because they  were, he  alleges, included within the said  composition  title  by an  agreement had  between the applicant,  Pedro  Balatian, and the  party whom  he calls his predecessor in interest, Bernabe Foronda.

With respect to this point, the defendant presented a private document, Exhibit 3, wherein it appears that Tomas Balatian declares that he received, on May 19, 1896, from Bernabe  Foronda,  15 pesos to pay for the registration "of our rural properties and  for  such other expenses as may be necessary,  because the documents pertaining to their lands have been included among those relating to the lands belonging to us."   The trial court, however,  accorded  no value whatever to  this evidence as it considered the document to be false, because it appears that it was authorized by Tomas Balatian  on a date when Pedro Balatian was still living, the sole owner of the lands who could and should have authorized it then, for, as before stated, he did not die until November 30,1897.

Moreover, it must be considered that, even admitting the statements contained in the said  document to have  been proved, still the latter would  not  be proof that the lands comprised within Balatian's composition title were precisely the first, second, and sixteenth  parcels, and not others of the seventeen embraced in the said title.

None of the assignments of error are sustained.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant.  So ordered.

Torres, Johnson, Moreland, and  Trent, JJ.,  concur.