Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > October 1911 Decisions > G.R. No. 6375 October 19, 1911 - EDUARDO BALOLOY v. JOSE EDU, ET AL.

020 Phil 360:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 6375. October 19, 1911.]

EDUARDO BALOLOY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOSE EDU, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Iñigo Bitanga, for Appellant.

Nicolas Segundo, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. REALTY; PARTITION; PLANS. — In an action to recover possession of land, where the evidence is vague and uncertain as to its exact location, the court, in case of doubt as to the identity and location of the land in question, should require each party to present plans prepared by some competent person, to the end that the particular land may be identified and its exact location known.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J.:


On the 12th of June, 1909, the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Norte, for the purpose of securing a partition of four parcels of land located in the sitio of Rincon, pueblo of Bangui, Province of Ilocos Norte.

The defendants filed a general and special answer alleging that they were the exclusive owners of the first and second parcels of land described in the complaint and that the said third and fourth parcels of land were in the possession of one Maximo Zales, and that they had no interest whatever in said third and fourth parcels. The defendants further alleged that the parcels of land were not properly described in the complaint.

After hearing the evidence adduced during the trial of the cause, the Hon. Dionisio Chanco, judge, found:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) That the parcels of land in question had already been divided and that a petition for the partition of said lands was not the proper remedy;

(b) That the parcels of land described in the complaint did not coincide with the land described in the plan presented by the plaintiff; and

(c) That the documentary evidence presented by the defendants showed clearly that the defendants were entitled to the lands which they were actually possessing.

From that decision the plaintiff appealed to this court and made four assignments of error here, each of which presents questions of fact only.

During the trial of the cause the plaintiff testified in his own behalf. He said that in the year 1869 the parcels of land which he had described in his complaint had been, by mutual agreement, divided between his parents and the parents of the defendants, and in support of his statement presented Exhibit A, which appears to be an agreement between the respective parents of the plaintiff and the defendants, in this action, with reference to the division of certain parcels of land located in the sitio of Rincon. The parcels of land referred to in said Exhibit A are not described with such a degree of particularity that we are ableto determine whether the lands included in said agreement of partition are the lands included in the complaint in the present action. The plaintiff alleges that they are the same; there is no proof to the contrary, and we accept the fact.

From the documentary evidence adduced during the trial of the cause it appears that the parents of the plaintiff, on the 28th of May, 1870, commenced an action against the parents of the defendants, for the purpose of recovering possession of a parcel of land located in the said sitio of Rincon, and that that cause was decided in favor of the parents of the defendants. However, there is nothing in the record which shows that the lands involved in said action, of the 28th of May, 1870, were the same lands involved in the present action.

Accepting the proof adduced by the plaintiff that a partition of the lands which he claims has already taken place, we find no reason in the record for ordering a second partition of said lands. If it be true that the plaintiff has lost his portion of the lands under said partition and that the same are in the possession of either the defendants or other persons, he is not without his remedy to recover the same.

The evidence in the present case does not seem to identify the lands in question with that degree of certainty which should be required. We can see no reason why persons who are claiming parcels of land should not be able to describe them by exact metes and bounds and present a plan in accordance with such description, so that any person might go into the district where the said lands are located and actually determine in whose possession such lands are. In contest over the possession of land the lower court, in case of doubt as to the identity of the land, should require each party to present plans prepared by some competent person, to the end that the court may know the exact parcels of land to which the evidence makes reference. In the absence of such definite plans it is difficult to see how the courts can decide the ownership and possession of real property.

After a full consideration of the evidence brought to this court we find no reason for modifying the judgment of the lower court; the same is, therefore, hereby affirmed, with costs.

Torres, Mapa, Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1911 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 5314 October 2, 1911 - PILAR SALUNGA, ET AL. v. EMILIANO C. EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

    020 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 6419 October 2, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. YU KIAO

    020 Phil 307

  • G.R. No. 5928 October 4, 1911 - TOMAS AMANCIO v. JORGE PARDO, ET AL.

    020 Phil 313

  • G.R. No. 6530 October 6, 1911 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. DIABA

    020 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 6626 October 6, 1911 - JOSE R. DE LA PEÑA, ET AL. v. FEDERICO HIDALGO

    020 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 6774 October 6, 1911 - VICENTE QUIOGUE v. L. P. McKEEHAN, ET AL.

    020 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 6881 October 12, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL JAVIER, ET AL.

    020 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. 5970 October 13, 1911 - JOSEPH N. WOLFSON v. ESTATE OF FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    020 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. 6584 October 16, 1911 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. ELLIS CROMWELL

    020 Phil 345

  • G.R. No. 6739 October 16, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. LUIS BIEN

    020 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. 6820 October 16, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PRUDENCIO GARCIA

    020 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. 6717 October 19, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. FAUSTINO MESINA

    021 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 6375 October 19, 1911 - EDUARDO BALOLOY v. JOSE EDU, ET AL.

    020 Phil 360

  • G.R. No. 6821 October 19, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIANA CRUZ, ET AL.

    020 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 7262 October 21, 1911 - FRANCISCO S. GONZALEZ v. THE BOARD OF PHARMACY, ET AL.

    020 Phil 367

  • G.R. No. 6896 October 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ANTERO INOSANTO

    020 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 5952 October 24, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO PONTE, ET AL.

    020 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 6505 October 24, 1911 - CHIU YUCO, ET AL. v. VICTORIANO PORE

    020 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. 6565 October 24, 1911 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

    020 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 6591 October 24, 1911 - JUAN RETES v. DAMASO SUELTO

    020 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 6613 October 24, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. LEE SEE

    020 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 6625 October 24, 1911 - JUANA CAGUIOA v. MARIA CALDERON

    020 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 6666 October 24, 1911 - GEORGE E. BROWN v. MANILA ELECTRIC RAILROAD AND LIGHT COMPANY

    020 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 6677 October 24, 1911 - EUSEBIA BROCE, ET AL. v. PEDRO DE LA VIÑA, ET AL.

    020 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 6782 October 24, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO SANCHEZ

    020 Phil 428

  • G.R. No. 6311 October 24, 1911 - IRENE GREGORIO v. ELENA COSIO, ET AL.

    021 Phil 619