February 1910 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1910 > February 1910 Decisions >
G.R. No. 5188 February 10, 1910 - LINO ALINDOGAN v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT
015 Phil 168:
015 Phil 168:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 5188. February 10, 1910. ]
LINO ALINDOGAN ET AL., Petitioners-Appellees, v. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, Respondent-Appellant.
Attorney-General Villamor, for Appellant.
No appearance for Appellees.
SYLLABUS
1. JUDGMENT; NECESSITY OF MAKING FINDING OF FACTS. — The decisions of this court in the cases of Braga v. Millora (3 Phil. Rep., 458), Enriquez v. Enriquez (3 Phil. Rep., 746), and City of Manila v. The Insular Government (9 Phil. Rep., 71), followed to the extent of holding that the judges of the Courts of First Instance as well as the judges of the Land Court must make a finding of facts upon which they base their conclusion, in accordance with the provisions of section 133 of Act No. 190.)
D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J. :
On the 7th of March, 1906, Lino Alindogan and Lino Alindogan Jac-Teoco petitioned for described in the first paragraph of the petition, with a superficial area of 5,172 square meters.
After the petition had been presented, the Solicitor-General, representing the Chief of the Bureau of Lands, filed the following writing or notice:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The Solicitor-General, representing the Director of Public Lands, appears before the court in this case and prays that he made a party to any further proceedings and summoned on behalf of the aforesaid Director of Public Lands. — Manila, March 30, 1906. — Gregorio Araneta, Solicitor-General."cralaw virtua1aw library
After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the lower court rendered the following judgment or decree:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The court, having received and being fully informed of everything connected with this case, finds that the petitioners have legally acquired their title, and the absolute owners in equal parts pro indiviso of the land in question."cralaw virtua1aw library
"Therefore, the opposition of the Director of Land is overruled, and, after a declaration of general default, let the adjudication and registry of said land in favor of the petitioners be decreed, subject to an easement of way acknowledge by the petitioners and marked on the plan as a way made by the owners.’"
To this judgment the representative of the Government duly excepted and presented a motion for a new trial based upon the ground that the evidence adduced during the trial was insufficient to justify the conclusion of the lower court; which motion was denied. The representative of the Government dully excepted to the court denying said motion for a new trial. The cause was subsequently brought to this court by bill of exception and the Attorney General made the following assignment of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The Court of Land Registration erred in not making any finding of facts in its judgment."cralaw virtua1aw library
An examination of the judgment of the lower court shows that the made no finding of facts whatever upon which he based his conclusion. His failure so to do in direct violation of the provision of article 133 of the code of Procedure in Civil Action (Act No. 190)
This court has frequently decided has that a failure to make a finding of facts by the lower court, upon which he based his conclusion, was reversible error. (See Braga v. Millora, 3 Phil. Rep., 458; Enriquez v. Enriquez, 3 Phil. Rep., 746; City of Manila v. The Insular Government, 9 Phil. Rep., 71.)
The argument for the conclusion of this court has been fully set out in the foregoing cases. We deem it unnecessary to repeat it here. It is sufficient to say that we adhere to the doctrine established in said decision. In view of the fact, however, that during the registration of the title in favor of the plaintiff, and in view of the facts that the plaintiff were in no way responsible for the error complained of here, the cause is hereby remanded to the lower court, with direction that a finding of facts be made from the evidence adduced during the trial. Without the necessity of the presentation of other or additional proof, and that when the same is done that the be registered in accordance with the conclusions in the decision of the lower court in the present cause.
Without any special findings as to costs, it is so ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Moreland, and Elliott, JJ., concur.
CARSON, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Understanding, as I do, that the concluding sentence of the above decision should not and is not intended to have the effect of depriving the parties of their right to appeal from the new judgment to be entered by the court below, before the title to the property in question is registered, I concur.
After the petition had been presented, the Solicitor-General, representing the Chief of the Bureau of Lands, filed the following writing or notice:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The Solicitor-General, representing the Director of Public Lands, appears before the court in this case and prays that he made a party to any further proceedings and summoned on behalf of the aforesaid Director of Public Lands. — Manila, March 30, 1906. — Gregorio Araneta, Solicitor-General."cralaw virtua1aw library
After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the lower court rendered the following judgment or decree:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The court, having received and being fully informed of everything connected with this case, finds that the petitioners have legally acquired their title, and the absolute owners in equal parts pro indiviso of the land in question."cralaw virtua1aw library
"Therefore, the opposition of the Director of Land is overruled, and, after a declaration of general default, let the adjudication and registry of said land in favor of the petitioners be decreed, subject to an easement of way acknowledge by the petitioners and marked on the plan as a way made by the owners.’"
To this judgment the representative of the Government duly excepted and presented a motion for a new trial based upon the ground that the evidence adduced during the trial was insufficient to justify the conclusion of the lower court; which motion was denied. The representative of the Government dully excepted to the court denying said motion for a new trial. The cause was subsequently brought to this court by bill of exception and the Attorney General made the following assignment of error:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The Court of Land Registration erred in not making any finding of facts in its judgment."cralaw virtua1aw library
An examination of the judgment of the lower court shows that the made no finding of facts whatever upon which he based his conclusion. His failure so to do in direct violation of the provision of article 133 of the code of Procedure in Civil Action (Act No. 190)
This court has frequently decided has that a failure to make a finding of facts by the lower court, upon which he based his conclusion, was reversible error. (See Braga v. Millora, 3 Phil. Rep., 458; Enriquez v. Enriquez, 3 Phil. Rep., 746; City of Manila v. The Insular Government, 9 Phil. Rep., 71.)
The argument for the conclusion of this court has been fully set out in the foregoing cases. We deem it unnecessary to repeat it here. It is sufficient to say that we adhere to the doctrine established in said decision. In view of the fact, however, that during the registration of the title in favor of the plaintiff, and in view of the facts that the plaintiff were in no way responsible for the error complained of here, the cause is hereby remanded to the lower court, with direction that a finding of facts be made from the evidence adduced during the trial. Without the necessity of the presentation of other or additional proof, and that when the same is done that the be registered in accordance with the conclusions in the decision of the lower court in the present cause.
Without any special findings as to costs, it is so ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Moreland, and Elliott, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
CARSON, J., concurring:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
Understanding, as I do, that the concluding sentence of the above decision should not and is not intended to have the effect of depriving the parties of their right to appeal from the new judgment to be entered by the court below, before the title to the property in question is registered, I concur.
