Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > October 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-16761 October 31, 1964 - JOHN M. MILLER v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-16761. October 31, 1964.]

JOHN M. MILLER and EMILIO ESPINOSA, JR., applicants-appellees, v. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL., oppositors; ANSELMO IRENEA, ARTURO DE LA CRUZ, DOMINADOR MANGCAO, LUCAS FRANCISCO, CIPRIANO SEQUILLO, PEDRO TAGALOG, PONCIANO GARCIA, RODOLFO DE DIOS, ET AL., private oppositors-appellants.

A.P. Mayor & C.P. Mayor for private oppositors-appellants.

E. Espinosa, Jr. & J. Ma. Francisco for applicants-appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. LAND REGISTRATION; REQUIREMENT OF VERIFYING OPPOSITION; WAIVED BY APPLICANTS’ PROCEEDING WITH TRIAL WITHOUT OBJECTION. — Where the applicants for registration of land proceeded with the trial, presented evidence and rested their case, without objecting to the unverified oppositions, and only after the first witness of the private oppositors had testified and applicants’ counsel had cross- examined him, was lack of verification brought up, it is held that the applicants had failed to invoke the requirement of verification under Sec. 34 of Art 496 seasonably, and that by that time the applicants had waived the said defect.

2. ID.; ID.; UNVERIFIED OPPOSITIONS SUFFICIENT TO CONFER STANDING IN COURT. — Unverified oppositions in land registration proceedings are sufficient to confer standing in court to oppositors, who may be allowed to verify their oppositions, especially where said defect is deemed waived by the applicants’ failure to invoke said requirement seasonably.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


A parcel of land in Tigbao, Milagros, Masbate which after survey, appeared to contain 411 hectares as per plan PSU-143798 was applied for registration in the Court of First Instance of Masbate on June 18, 1956 by John M. Miller and Emilio Espinosa, Jr.

After notice and publication, initial hearing was held on June 20, 1957. The Director of Lands and Bureau of Public Highways filed written oppositions. Thirty-five individuals appeared and expressed verbal oppositions. All persons, except the abovementioned oppositors, were declared in default on July 8, 1957.

On July 24, 1958 applicants started presenting evidence and the private oppositors were given five days to file written opposition (Tsn., p. 5). Of the 35 oppositors 28 filed written but unverified opposition on July 29, 1958. On August 20, 1958 applicants finished adducing evidence and rested their case.

On August 27, 1958 the private oppositors presented their first witness. After his cross-examination, counsel for applicants called the court’s attention to the lack of verification in the opposition filed by the private oppositors and moved to dismiss the same.

The private oppositors offered to verify their opposition. After parties had filed memoranda, the court issued an order on January 13, 1959 dismissing the unverified opposition, without pronouncement as to costs (Rec. on App., p. 26). Motion for reconsideration was denied by order dated November 18, 1959. The private oppositors have appealed from both orders.

The requirement of verifying oppositions in land registration proceedings is based on Sec. 34 of Act 496 —

"Any person claiming an interest, whether named in the notice or not, may appear and file an answer on or before the return day, or within such further time as may be allowed by the court. The answer shall state all the objections to the application, and shall set forth the interest claimed by the party filing the same and apply for the remedy desired, and shall be signed and sworn to by him or by some person in his behalf."cralaw virtua1aw library

Applicants failed to invoke this provision seasonably. Without objecting to the unverified opposition, they proceeded with the trial, presented evidence and rested their case. Only after the first witness of the private oppositors had testified and applicants’ counsel had cross-examined him, was the defect of lack of verification brought up. By that time, applicants had waived the defect —

"An objection to A want of verification must be seasonably made. . . . The objection must be taken before trial . . . The question cannot properly be raised by an objection to the introduction of evidence.

x       x       x


"Lack of, or defect in the verification of a pleading may be waived by the adverse party’s failure to make a proper and timely objection thereto . . . Where a party proceeds with the case as though his adversary’s pleading were verified, he waives the lack of verification of such pleading.

x       x       x


"The act of . . . proceeding to trial on the merits without objection, is generally a waiver of all uncertainties, ambiguities, irregularities, formal defects, or faults or defects of any kind in the pleadings of the adverse party.

x       x       x


"By . . . going to trial without objection, . . . a party may waive the right to urge that his adversary’s pleading is not subscribed or verified . . ." (46 G. J. S. 1120, 1129, 1133, 1137.)

Applicants contend that the defect could not be waived because it resulted in the private oppositors’ lack of standing in the case from the start.

This Court has already held unverified oppositions sufficient to confer standing in court to oppositors. In Malagum v. Pablo, 46 Phil. 19, a written opposition not made under oath was dismissed by the lower court. When oppositors sought from this Court mandamus to have their opposition reinstated, this Court denied the same for the reason that petitioners "had appeared in the case, had therefore standing in court, and the order excluding their answer was in effect a final determination of their rights" so that appeal and not mandamus was their proper remedy.

In Nicolas v. Director of Lands and Camungao, L-19147-8, December 28, 1963, the lower court dismissed a petition for review of its judgment adjudicating the land to an applicant, filed by an oppositor who was not notified of the hearing, for the reason that —

"In the first place, the opposition filed by him was not a valid opposition because it was not sworn to as required by the Land Registration Act. It was simply a written appearance. In other words, he failed to file his answer in due form."cralaw virtua1aw library

On appeal this Court held —

"The written appearance with opposition presented by petitioner herein, on November 7, 1951 (R.A.) was a valid one, and sufficient to give him legal standing in court and would entitle him to notice, as a matter of right. The lower court erred in choosing to ignore the written appearance with opposition, which was a substantial compliance with the law, that requires a formal answer."cralaw virtua1aw library

For purposes of record, the private oppositors should be allowed, as they had requested, to verify their opposition because, in any event, the supposed defect is deemed waived.

WHEREFORE, the orders appealed from are set aside and the case is remanded to the court a quo for further proceeding, without cots. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, 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-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-19772 October 21, 1964 - CELEDONIA O. VDA. DE ACOSTA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-19668 October 22, 1964 - DOMINGA TORRES v. J.M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20424 October 22, 1964 - CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. ELIAS AGNO

  • G.R. No. L-19578 October 27, 1964 - IN RE: PEDRO T. UY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19834 October 27, 1964 - IN RE: FELIX A. QUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • Adm. Case No. 442 October 30, 1964 - VIRGILIO L. KATINDIG v. JOSE BRILLANTES

  • G.R. No. L-13554 October 30, 1964 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. UNIVERSITY OF VISAYAS

  • G.R. No. L-15841 October 30, 1964 - CALIXTO GOLFEO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17337 October 30, 1964 - FELISA REGALA v. MARGARITA DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. L-18246 October 30, 1964 - PEOPLE HOMESITE & HOUSING CORP. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-18965 October 30, 1964 - COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA

  • G.R. No. L-19077 October 30, 1964 - WILLIAM G. PFLEIDER v. SERVILLANA CORDOVA DE BRITANICO

  • G.R. No. L-19112 October 30, 1964 - IN RE: TIO TEK CHAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19468 October 30, 1964 - SALVADOR PIANSAY v. CONRADO S. DAVID

  • G.R. No. L-19521 October 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN R. CHAVES

  • G.R. No. L-19556 October 30, 1964 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. ESPERANZA FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-19577 October 30, 1964 - IN RE: YAP BUN PIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19596 October 30, 1964 - LAVERN R. DILWEG v. ROBERT O. PHILLIPS

  • G.R. No. L-19602 October 30, 1964 - PHILIPPINE ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. v. MAYON MINING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-19977 October 30, 1964 - LAO CHA v. EMILIO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-20076 October 30, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGDALENA PADILLA

  • G.R. No. L-20304 October 30, 1964 - PERFECTO FAYPON v. SALVADOR L. MARIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-22789 October 30, 1964 - MANUEL L. PADILLA v. CALIXTO ZALDIVAR

  • G.R. No. L-21678 October 30, 1964 - PHILIPPINE REALTORS, INC. v. GUILLERMO SANTOS

  • Adm. Case No. 482 October 31, 1964 - ROSARIO CRUZ v. EDMUNDO CABAL

  • G.R. No. L-11897 October 31, 1964 - FERNANDO A. FROILAN v. PAN ORIENTAL SHIPPING CO.

  • G.R. No. L-14615 October 31, 1964 - MANUEL SANTIAGO v. RAFAEL CALUMPAG

  • G.R. No. L-16761 October 31, 1964 - JOHN M. MILLER v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

  • G.R. No. L-17162 October 31, 1964 - MIGUEL P. ARRIETA v. HONORIO BELLOS

  • G.R. No. L-17648 October 31, 1964 - KUENZLE & STREIFF, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-18719 October 31, 1964 - PILAR JOAQUIN v. FELIX ANICETO

  • G.R. No. L-19141 October 31, 1964 - IN RE: JUAN MALICDEM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19372 October 31, 1964 - NATIONAL MINES & ALLIED WORKER’S UNION v. PHILIPPINE IRON MINES, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19439 October 31, 1964 - MAURO MALANG SANTOS v. McCULLOUGH PRINTING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-19461 October 31, 1964 - MIGUEL R. SOCCO v. CONCHITA VDA. DE LEARY

  • G.R. No. L-19644 October 31, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUTROPIO ROMAWAK

  • G.R. No. L-19695 October 31, 1964 - IN RE: MATEO QUINGA CHUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19855 October 31, 1964 - GREGORIO FRANCES v. CRISPULO NICOLAS

  • G.R. No. L-20267 October 31, 1964 - GAW LAM v. AGAPITO CONCHU

  • G.R. No. L-20347 October 31, 1964 - ILDEFONSO BRECINIO v. NICOLAS PAPICTA

  • G.R. No. L-20846 October 31, 1964 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CHIU