Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1922 > June 1922 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18104 June 10, 1922 - JUANA MARTINEZ, ET AL. v. JUANA TOLENTINO ET AL.

043 Phil 492:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-18104. June 10, 1922. ]

JUANA MARTINEZ in her own behalf and as natural guardian of her daughter SINFOROSA VILAR, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. JUANA TOLENTINO ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

Basilio Aromin for Appellants.

Allen A. Garner for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


PARTITION; REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS; OBJECTION. — Held: That, under the facts stated in the opinion, no objection to the partition made by the commissioners, on the ground that one of the commissioners then absent did not take part therein, and which objection was not raised in the court below nor specifically assigned as error on appeal, will be considered by this court. The request of defendants’ attorney that he be furnished with a copy of the report of the commissioners had no support in law.


D E C I S I O N


ROMUALDEZ, J. :


This is an action for the partition of real properties. The partition was decreed by the lower court, requiring the parties to submit a tentative partition, the same to be drawn in such a way that one-half of said properties should be awarded to Juana Tolentino, and one-eight to Pio Vilar, Generosa Vilar, and Bernardino Vilar, and ordering, in case they could not come to an agreement, that they suggest the names of disinterested persons to be appointed by the court as commissioners to make said partition.

No agreement was arrived at, and the trial court appointed Fausto Aquino, Ramon Kipse, and Matias Neri as commissioners. On September 2, 1920, these commissioners submitted their report, which, upon the objection of the plaintiffs, was disapproved by the court, and on June 21, 1921, another report was filed which is set forth on page 29, and the following, of the bill of exceptions, and which met with the approval of the court on July 22, of that year.

It is from this order approving the aforesaid report that this appeal has been taken, the appellants alleging that the trial court committed the following two errors: (a) In approving said report although the partition therein referred to is not in conformity with the decision of the court, and (b) in approving said report without the defendants or their counsel having been heard.

We have examined the decision alluded to and the controverted report, and find that the partition was made in accordance with the bases fixed in the decision for the distribution of the aforesaid properties, so far as the proportionate shares awarded to the defendants are concerned. In their argument on this first assignment of error, appellants lay stress on the fact that the commissioner, Matias Neri, then absent, did not take part in the preparation of the report. This objection was not raised in the court below, nor specifically assigned as error in this court. We do not believe this new point to be worth taking into consideration.

With regard to the second assignment of error, it appears from the record that after the filing of the above-mentioned report, the defendants, through their counsel, asked the trial court not to proceed with the hearing on the said report until the commissioners or the plaintiffs have furnished the attorney for the defendants with a copy of the aforesaid report.

The court, by an order dated July 15, 1921, ruled on this petition, fixing the 21st day of that month for the hearing on the report above referred to.

When this last date came, the defendants did not appear, but the hearing was held, and the report in question approved.

We find no error in this action of the trial court. The request of defendant’s counsel that he be furnished with a copy of the report had no support whatever in law and was impliedly denied by the trial court.

The order appealed from is affirmed with the costs against the defendants. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, and Johns, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





June-1922 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16879 June 1, 1922 - SALAME BERBARI v. GENERAL OIL CO.

    043 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-17760 June 1, 1922 - FRANCISCO A. DELGADO v. ESTEBAN DE LA RAMA

    043 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-17991 June 3, 1922 - CALIXTO D. BERBARI v. ALFREDO CHICOTE

    043 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 17585 June 5, 1922 - GREGORIO DELA PENA v. GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS

    043 Phil 430

  • G.R. No. L-16540 June 7, 1922 - JOHN T. MACLEOD v. ESTATE OF E. H. JOHNSON

    043 Phil 435

  • G.R. No. L-17627 June 8, 1922 - IN RE: RAFAEL JOCSON v. ROSAURO JOCSON, ET AL.

    046 Phil 701

  • G.R. No. L-16753 June 8, 1922 - ROSA GARCIA ET AL. v. PLACIDO ESCUDERO

    043 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. L-18103 June 8, 1922 - PNB v. MANILA OIL REFINING & BY-PRODUCTS CO.

    043 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. L-17107 June 9, 1922 - MATIAS GONZALEZ v. IRA L. DAVIS ET AL.

    043 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. L-17536 June 9, 1922 - VICENTE DIAZ, ET AL. v. SECUNDO MENDEZONA, ET AL.

    043 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. L-17772 June 9, 1922 - FORTUNATO RODRIGUEZ v. Jose R. BORROMEO

    043 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-18104 June 10, 1922 - JUANA MARTINEZ, ET AL. v. JUANA TOLENTINO ET AL.

    043 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 17857 June 12, 1922 - IN RE: Josefa Zalamea y Abella v. ANTONIO ABELLA ET AL.

    043 Phil 494

  • G.R. No. 16936 June 13, 1922 - WARNER v. DIONISIO INZA

    043 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. 17690 June 14, 1922 - YU BIAO SONTUA & CO. v. MIGUEL J. OSSORIO

    043 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. L-16599 June 17, 1922 - VICTORIANO BETCO v. "LA FLOR DE INTAL

    043 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. L-17598 June 17, 1922 - HENRY HARDING v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CO.

    043 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. L-17150 June 20, 1922 - ANDRES SOLER v. EDWARD CHESLEY

    043 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. L-17709 June 20, 1922 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. GREGORIO OLEGARIO, ET AL.

    043 Phil 540

  • G.R. No. L-18952 June 20, 1922 - B. A. GREEN v. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO

    043 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 18010 June 21, 1922 - BASILIO BORJA v. P. W. ADDISON, ET AL.

    044 Phil 895

  • G.R. No. 17357 June 21, 1922 - CLARO SAYO v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

    043 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. 17900 June 21, 1922 - EUGENIO CAGAOAN v. FELIX CAGAOAN, ET AL.

    043 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 17043 June 22, 1922 - FLORENTINO PAMINTUAN v. PRIMITIVO SAN AGUSTIN

    043 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. L-17783 June 22, 1922 - DI SIOCK JIAN v. SY LIOC SUY ET AL.

    043 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-18105 June 22, 1922 - RUFINO PABICO v. ONG PAUCO

    043 Phil 572



  • G.R. No. L-17825 June 26, 1922 - IN RE: U. DE POLI. FELISA ROMAN v. ASIA BANKING CORP.

    046 Phil 705


  • G.R. No. L-16746 June 26, 1922 - THE MUNICIPALITY OF ALBAY v. CONSTANCIO BENITO in his own behalf, ET AL.

    043 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. L-17863 June 26, 1922 - CENON FERNANDEZ v. CESAR MERCADER, ET AL.

    043 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. L-19114 June 26, 1922 - SALVADOR JARANILLO v. ANDRES JACINTO

    043 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. L-17131 June 30, 1922 - SING JUCO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO SUYANTONG, ET AL.

    043 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. L-19153 June 30, 1922 - B. E. JOHANNES v. CARLOS A. IMPERIAL

    043 Phil 597