Eustaquia Castillo brought this action against Ambrosio Castillo for the  recovery of  a  piece  of  land  situated in Cabulalaan  (formerly Bato) of the municipality of Cabugao, Ilocos Sur, the area and boundaries  of which are set forth in the complaint.   The plaintiff alleged  that the land passed into the  possession of the defendant in 1898 by virtue of a verbal contract of lease under which the latter was to pay the former,  as rental, one-half of the crops produced thereon. The complaint further alleged that the defendant paid the rental up to 1905, since which date he discontinued to do so; that the latter, in the years 1906, 1907, and 1908, harvested 6 uyones of unhulled rice and 6 bales of tobacco, and that the value of  plaintiff's  one-half share of these products was P60;  and  concluded by  asking  that the  defendant restore the land to the plaintiff and deliver to him 3 uyones of unhulled rice  and 3 bales of tobacco, or pay him P60, and that the costs be assessed against the  defendant.

The defendant admitted that  he owned  a piece of land in the place mentioned, but that it  was not of the same area and boundaries  as those  stated by the plaintiff, but had the boundaries and area which he in turn  specified. The defendant claimed that the said land was his and had been  in  his  possession  for  the past thirty years.   Subsequently, however, the parties came to an agreement with respect to the identity of the land.

After the production of both oral  and documentary evidence, the Court of First Instance  of Ilocos  Sur decided the suit by absolving the defendant, without  special finding as to costs.

The plaintiffs appealed, with right to a  review  of the evidence;  and  we find the following facts to have been proved:

1. The  origin of the title to the land in question. - The defendant  himself states that the original owner  of the property  was  Rafael  Castillo, who  died  without leaving either descendants or ascendants, and that  on  this account his brother, Manuel Castillo, was the  sole heir.
   
   
2. The  conveyance of  the  land at the  death of Manuel Castillo. - Three witnesses testified with respect thereto - Venancia  Castillo, Alejo  Castillo, and Vicenta Castillo.

Venancia Castillo is the daughter of  Manuel Castillo, and was  married in second  wedlock to  Pascual Castillo. Pascual Castillo, as  appears  from the record,  by his first wife had  two  children, the defendant, Ambrosio Castilla, and Vicenta Castillo, previously referred to.  The plaintiff, Eustaquia  Castillo, was born  of his second marriage with Venancia  Castillo.  So that  Eustaquia,  the plaintiff,  and Ambrosio, the  defendant, are children of the same father, Pascual, although of different mothers.

Although Manuel Castillo had other children besides Venancia, namely, Adriano, Martin, Agapita, and  Luis,  yet, in the partition of his property, the land in question, inherited by him from Rafael, as aforesaid, fell to Venancia's share. This was testified to by Alejo Castillo,  before mentioned, one of the sharers in that partition, in representation of his mother, Agapita, and the said Vicenta Castillo, a sister by the same father  and mother  of the  defendant Ambrosio.  No reason has  been advanced for doubting their  testimony, and still less  has any  proof been submitted whereby that testimony could be rejected.

3. The possession of the title of ownership. - The title of ownership to the land, originally obtained by Rafael Castillo, was held by Venancia Castillo, after the death of her father Manuel, and it was Venancia's daughter, the plaintiff Eustaquia Castillo, who  presented it at the trial as proof of her right of dominion.
   
   
4. The conveyance of Venancia's property to her daughter Eustaquia. - This is proved by the same three witnesses, Venancia, Alejo, and  Vicenta Castillo, and  also by Victoriano  Castro.  When the latter married Eustaquia Castillo, his wife received from her mother Venancia the said land as a gift propter nuptias.
   
   
5. The character of the land at the  time that Venancia married Pascual  Castillo. - This  was  stated explicitly in the testimony of Vicenta Castillo, the  sister, by the same father and  mother, of the defendant Ambrosio  Castillo. This witness testified that her mother had brought that property on  her marriage with Pascual Castillo; so that it belonged to  the  private or paraphernal property of the wife,  in which her husband, Pascual Castillo,  could have no share, and  this fact was positively  affirmed  in  her testimony by the daughter of Pascual Castillo.
   
   
6. The possession of the land since the  death of Manuel Castillo. - This was established by the same three witnesses, particularly by one of them, Alejo Castillo, who, moreover, testified  that for about five years the  property had been mortgaged to him by his aunt, Venancia, until she canceled the mortgage when she  intended giving  the land to  her daughter Eustaquia at the time the latter contracted marriage with Victoriano Castro.
   
   
7. The reason why the  land was in the possession of the defendant. - This was stated  by the same witnesses, and also by Victoriano Castro, who  was not  even  cross-questioned by the  opposing  party.  They  uniformly  testified that, at the very beginning of the marriage of Victoriano Castro with Eustaquia Castillo, the former leased the land to Ambrosio Castillo, at a certain annual rental, and that this  lessee continued paying the rental, except during the last  three years.  Thus it  was that the' lessor sued the lessee for  the payment  of  the said unpaid  rent, as confirmed by a certified copy of the defendant's answer to the complaint, presented  for the purpose,  the  plaintiff's  Exhibit C,  corroborated  by the defendant in the  following terms:
   

"Q. Do you remember whether there was ever any litigation  between the same parties, over this same land  today in dispute? - A.  Yes, sir; before this suit for the recovery of possession was started, this same woman Eustaquia sued me for the rental of the land in question, and therefore the land which is the subject of the present litigation  is the same as  that concerned  in the previous suit,  with the exception of a few differences which were settled in an agreement between the parties made the other day at the hearing of this case."

In the  said answer the defendant said:

"3. That he is the owner of the land concerned in  this case, and as such owner he has been in the possession and enjoyment  of the same, without any interruption on the part of anyone, since February, 1884, when it was  given to  him propter nuptias."

But in  the present  suit the defendant  endeavored to prove his ownership by the following witnesses:

Silvestre Castillo, who testified that the disputed land belonged to the defendant "because he had inherited it from his first  wife, Procesa Castillo,  who also had inherited it from her father, Adriano Castillo."

Angel  Castillo, a brother of the defendant,  who testified that the  said land  belonged  to the latter "because  it  was conveyed to the defendant by Manuel Castillo, our father's cousin,  in consideration of the defendant's  having contributed  toward  the  payment of  a debt which  the said Manuel had contracted  with  a  mestizo of  Vigan and on  account of which this same land, together with some other parcels of land, had been mortgaged."

And Tomasa Secretario, the second wife of the defendant, who testified as follows:

"Q. Do you know the  land in question? - A. Yes, sir; I know it because it  was given to us  at  the  time of our marriage, for the defendant is my husband.

"Q. Do you know this document,  Exhibit A of the defendant? - A.  That is the document which they  gave us in support of  the gifts received when I was married, and they told me  that it contained the  land  in question, but I do not know how to read."

This Exhibit A, which the defendant presented as proof of his ownership, is written in the  local vernacular and its translation, which was admitted at the trial, reads as follows:

"By these presents is  made  to appear  that which  I am able to give to my son Ambrosio Castillo on his marriage with Tomasa Secretario, and which is as follows:

"1. A parcel of rice land in the sitio named Bugnay, etc.
"2. A parcel of rice land in the sitio of Balay-oac, etc.
"3. A parcel of rice land in the sitio called Binulalaan,
"4. A parcel of vegetable garden land, etc.
"5. Three carabaos, etc,
"6. One cow calf, etc.
"7. Two horses, etc.
"8. One peso, in cash."

This document was signed on the 23d of February,  1884, by  Pascual  Castillo; and by others  of the Castillo family with a cross, because they did not know how to write their names.

No land whatever situated in  Cabulalaan (formerly Bato) which is, according to the litigating parties, the subject of the dispute, appears to have been given.

And although the land in question had been given in a clear and precise manner, such a gift would not constitute a title in favor of  the  defendant, for the simple reason that, as the land had been  brought by Venancia Castillo to her marriage with Pascual Castillo, the husband could not dispose of a thing which was the private and  exclusive property of his wife and which was acquired prior to the marriage.

The three assignments of error alleged in this appeal by the appellants are admissible.

The judgment appealed from is reversed, without special finding as to costs, and the  trial  court shall render  judgment in strict accordance with the petition of the complaint. So ordered.

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