Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1914 > March 1914 Decisions > G.R. No. 8429-27 March 7, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL.

027 Phil 34:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 8429-27. March 7, 1914. ]

THE CITY OF MANILA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

William A. Kincaid and Thomas L. Hartigan for Appellants.

City Attorney Nesmith for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. EMINENT DOMAIN; CONFIRMATION OF REPORT OF COMMISSIONS. — Where the parties to an action to condemn property for public use agree to the report of the commissioners appointed to appraise the value of the property taken, and join in asking the court to confirm it, it is the duty of the court to confirm the report unless there appears some reason touching the public interest why it should not be.

2. ID.; ID. — Under section 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court has no authority to do anything except to confirm the report of the commissioners unless it is objected to by one of the parties interested and cause shown why it should not be confirmed. The showing of cause is a condition precedent to the authority of the court to modify or set aside.

3. ID.; ID. — Where the parties appear in open court at a hearing upon the confirmation of the report of the commissioners appointed to appraise the property in condemnation proceedings and join in a motion to confirm the referees’ report, it is equivalent to a stipulation for judgment in conformity with such report.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J. :


On the 12th of October, 1911, plaintiff filed a complaint for the condemnation of certain lots of land situated in the city of Manila, among them lands belonging to defendants, for the purpose of widening a public street parallel to the Escolta in the district of Binondo.

Defendants answered the complaint, admitting the right of the city of condemn and setting their damages at P196,000.

A commission of three persons was duly appointed which, after viewing the premises and hearing the parties and their witnesses, made its report, whereby said defendants and appellants were allowed P84,173.40 for the land condemned and P35,000 for the improvements thereon, making a total of P119,173.40.

When the report came before the court the city attorney, by a written motion, asked the court to confirm the same render judgment in accordance with its findings and conclusions. This motion was agreed to by the defendants Battle and wife, and, in open court, counsel for both parties orally requested the court to confirm the report in accordance with the motion of the city attorney.

On September 3, 1912, the court, disregarding the agreement of the parties, and without notice to the parties and without evidence other than that found in the report, rendered a judgment disapproving the report in so far as it related to the damages allowed Battle and wife and made other and different findings, and, thereon, reduced the award made them from P119,173.40 to P105,144.50.

The appellants excepted to the new findings and the judgment based thereon and moved the court to set it aside and to grant a new trial upon several grounds, among them being that the action of the court was unjustified, in violation of the agreement of the parties affected, and beyond the power of the court to make. This motion was denied and the appellants duly excepting thereto appealed to this court.

It is contended by the appellants that, under the facts above related, it was the duty of the trial court to approve the report of the commissioners and that the law did not justify it in setting it aside and making findings of its own prejudicial to the interests of the appellants. The appellants assert that both parties litigant having agreed to the findings of the commissioners, having accepted the award made thereby, and having manifested that conformity in proper form, and having agreed in open to the confirmation of the report as presented, the trial court had no authority to do otherwise than to confirm.

The appellee, on the other land, contends, as a matter of fact, that here was no agreement between the attorneys for the parties relative to the confirmation of the report of the commissioners, saying:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The fatal defect in appellants’ position is that the agreement which they rely on as the basis for their appeal is purely an invention of counsel, never having had any existence in fact. The circumstances which counsel construe into a binding stipulation were these: On the filing of the report of the commissioners, counsel for the city, who in the proceedings before the commission had vigorously contested the extravagant estimates of value placed upon appellants’ land by alleged experts, filed on August 3, 1912, the following motion:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned attorney for the plaintiff, the city of Manila, in the above-entitled action, prays the court to approve and confirm the report of the commissioners in said cause and render a decision in conformity therewith.’

"On presenting the above motion in open court, counsel for both sides submitted ’said report to the court without objection and with a verbal request for its approval.’"

We cannot agree with the position of counsel for the city above set out, in so far as it denies conformity on the part of counsel for the interested parties for the approval by the court of the report of the commission. Counsel himself admits, as expressly appears in the bill of exceptions, that the counsel for the city moved the court for the confirmation of the report, that counsel for the appellants joined in the motion, and that both together prayed in open court that said report be confirmed.

Moreover, there appears in one of the bills of exception filed on this appeal the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"On the 18th of September, 1912, the plaintiff, the city of Manila, and the defendants, Evaristo Battle y Hernandez and his wife Luisa Alvarez Estrada y Arrieta, presented following agreement:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘It is hereby agreed between the city of Manila, plaintiff, and Evaristo Battle y Hernandez and his wife, Luisa Estrada, Defendants, that when the above-entitled cause was called for hearing upon the report of the commissioners, the city attorney, Hon. I. Adams, in representation of the city of Manila, and W. A. Kincaid in representation of the defendants Batlle and wife, submitted the said report to the court without objection and with a verbal request for its approval.’"

The bill of exceptions containing this agreement was expressly approved by the attorney for the city on the 2d day of October, 1912, as well as by the court on the 3d of October of the same year.

While, speaking technically, there was no express stipulation for judgment, there was, nevertheless, such an agreement between the parties relating thereto as to amount to the same thing in law. Although, as counsel says, the agreement just quoted was not made until long after the events to which if refers and which it incorporates occurred, nevertheless, it embodies, and thereby concedes, the existence of those events, and the existence of those events discloses a perfect agreement between the parties interested relative to the approval and confirmation of the commissioner’s report, in so far as it affected their interests.

The question naturally arises then whether, under such circumstances, the court was justified in law in disregarding the conformity of the parties relative to the confirmation of the report and, upon its own motion, to proceed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law of its own and to render a judgment thereupon materially different from that which it would have rendered it if had followed the agreement of the parties interested.

We are of the opinion that the court erred and that its judgment must be reversed to the extent to which it changed the report of the commission relative to the award made to these Appellant. Section 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Upon the filing of such report in court, the court shall, upon hearing, accept the same and render judgment in accordance therewith; or for cause shown, it may recommit the report to the commissioners for further report of facts; or it may set aside the report and appoint new commissioners; or it may accept the report in part and reject it in part, and may make such final order and judgment as shall secure to the plaintiff the property essential to the exercise of his rights under the law, and to the defendant just compensation for the land so taken; . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

From this section it is clear that, on the presentation to the court of the report of the commissioners, the court shall accept the same and render judgment in accordance therewith. That is the first duty thrust upon the court when the report is presented. Under certain conditions, however, the court may do other things. It may recommit the report to the committee; it may set is aside and appoint new commissioners; it may accept the report in part and reject it in part and made such final order as may be just and proper. But it can do these things only upon a condition named in the section and that is that cause be shown.

The showing of cause is a condition precedent for doing anything except to confirm the report. This means that cause must be shown by the parties interested. The court itself has no interest in the matter except, perhaps, in cases wherein it clearly appears that a fraud has been committed upon the court or upon the public by the report or that the findings of the commission are such as to show fraud, corruption, or bad faith. Its duty, in the absence of cause shown, is to confirm the report. This is so even though there is objection made to it. How much more is it its duty when the parties themselves affirmatively agree upon the justice, equity, and legality of the report and jointly ask for its confirmation!

The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded to the court whence it came, with instructions to enter a judgment in favor of the appellants and against the appellee for the sum found by the report of the commissioners to be due them. Of the judgment so entered only that part thereof will be collectible which remains unpaid, with interest thereon. No costs in this instance.

Arellano, C.J., and Araullo, J., concur.

Carson and Trent, JJ., concur in the result.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1914 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9267 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GERVASIO GUMARANG ET AL.,

    027 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 9291 March 2, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CAMILA CUNANAN

    027 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 8254 March 3, 1914 - MARIANO GONZAGA ET AL. v. FELISA GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. 8913 March 3, 1914 - NELLIE LOUISE COOK v. J. MCMICKING

    027 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9201 March 3, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PABLO SUAN

    027 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 8223 March 4, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO PAINAGA

    027 Phil 18

  • G.R. No. 7657 March 6, 1914 - AMBROSIO TIEMPO v. VIUDA E HIJOS DE PLACIDO REYES

    027 Phil 33

  • G.R. No. 8429-27 March 7, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. EVARISTO BATLLE ET AL.

    027 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. 8662 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES BESUÑA

    027 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. 8699 March 7, 1914 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. SHERIFF OF OCCIDENTAL NEGROS

    027 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. 8983 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO EDPALINA

    027 Phil 43

  • G.R. No. 9066 March 7, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANASTASIO HUDIERES

    027 Phil 45

  • G.R. No. 7946 March 9, 1914 - CITY OF MANILA v. SATURNINA RIZAL

    027 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. 8227 March 9, 1914 - ANTONIO M. JIMENEZ v. FIDEL REYES

    027 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. 8325 March 10, 1914 - C. B. WILLIAMS v. TEODORO R. YANGCO

    027 Phil 68

  • G.R. No. 8927 March 10, 1914 - ASUNCION NABLE JOSE ET AL. v. MARIA IGNACIA USON ET AT.

    027 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 9147 March 10, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PERFECTO LAMADRID ET AL.

    027 Phil 76

  • G.R. No. 8603 March 13, 1914 - SEVERINO CORNISTA v. SEVERA TICSON

    027 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 8984 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN LABIAL

    027 Phil 82

  • G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472 March 13, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EVARISTO VAQUILAR

    027 Phil 88

  • G.R. No. 8748 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SANTOS P. PALMA

    027 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. 8931 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN MARQUI

    027 Phil 97

  • G.R. No. 8971 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. CIRILO BAUA

    027 Phil 103

  • G.R. No. 9006 March 14, 1914 - JOSE ANTONIO GASCON ENRIQUEZ v. A.D. GIBBS

    027 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. 9059 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SARMIENTO

    027 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 9099 March 14, 1914 - J. MCMICKING v. SPRUNGLI & CO. ET AL.

    027 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 9169 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. PANTELEON MARIANO ET AL.

    027 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 9348 March 14, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ELEUTERO MANTE

    027 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 7352 March 15, 1914 - CATALINO HILLARO v. LA CONGREGACION DE SAN VICENTE DE PAUL

    027 Phil 593

  • G.R. No. 8140 March 16, 1914 - FORTUNATO GASPAR v. ANACLETO QUINADARA

    027 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 8851 March 16, 1914 - AGAPITO BONZON v. STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK ET AL.,

    027 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 8200 March 17, 1914 - LEONARDO LUCIDO v. GELASIO CALUPITAN ET AL.

    027 Phil 148

  • Special proceeding March 17, 1914 - IN RE: EUGENIO DE LARA

    027 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 7333 March 18, 1914 - DEMETRIO ARCENAS v. ESTANISLAO LASERNA

    027 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 7790 March 19, 1914 - EL BANCO ESPANOL-FILIPINO v. MCKAY & ZOELLER

    027 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 8235 March 19, 1914 - ISIDORO SANTOS v. LEANDRA MANARANG

    027 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 8414 March 19,1914

    ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHIBISHOP OF MANILA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    027 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 8998 March 19, 1914 - JOSE FLORENDO v. EUSTAQUIO P. FOZ

    027 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 9307 March 19, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO GARCIA ET AL.

    027 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9098 March 20, 1914 - JOSE M. GONZALEZ v. PERCY M. MOIR

    027 Phil 256

  • Special proceeding March 21, 1914 - IN RE: LUICIANO DE LA ROSA

    027 Phil 258

  • G.R. No. 8937 March 21, 1914 - ALHAMBRA CIGAR AND CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING. CO. v. PEDRO N. MOJICA

    027 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. 9302 March 21, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. AGATON DUNGCA

    027 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 6960 March 23, 1914 - VICENTE GUASH v. JUANA ESPIRITU

    027 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 7909 March 24, 1914 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ISABEL RAMIREZ

    027 Phil 281

  • G.R. No. 8385 March 24, 1914 - LUCIO ALGARRA v. SIXTO SANDEJAS

    027 Phil 284

  • G.R. No. 8314 March 25, 1914 - M. A. CLARKE v. MANILA CANDY COMPANY

    027 Phil 310

  • G.R. No. 8461 March 25, 1914 - RAMON MEDINA ONG-QUINGCO v. CECILIO IMAZ

    027 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. 9124 March 25, 1914 - PIO MERCADO v. MARIA TAN-LINGCO

    027 Phil 319

  • Special Proceeding March 25, 1914 - IN RE: EMILIANO TRIA TIRONA

    027 Phil 323



  • G.R. No. 7721 March 25, 1914 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. GREGORIO YULO

    034 Phil 978


  • G.R. No. 7420 March 25, 1914 - NAZARIO CABALLO ET AL. v. CIPRIANO DANDOY ET. AL.

    027 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7762 March 25, 1914 - BEHN v. JOSE MCMICKING

    027 Phil 612

  • G.R. No. 7593 March 27, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE M. IGPUARA

    027 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 7647 March 27, 1914 - DOMINGO CALUYA v. LUCIA DOMINGO

    027 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 7670 March 28, 1914 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 8051 March 28, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. VICENTE MADRIGAL ET AL.

    027 Phil 347

  • G.R. No. 9010 March 28, 1914 - J. H. CHAPMAN v. JAMES M. UNDERWOOD

    027 Phil 374

  • G.R. Nos. 9619 & 9620 March 28, 1914 - NGO YAO TIT EL AL. v. SHERIFF OF THE CITY OF MANILA

    027 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. 7270 March 29, 1914 - GREGORIO JIMENEZ ET AL. v. PASCUALA LOZADA ET AL.

    027 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 7287 & 7288 March 29, 1914 - PEDRO MONTIERO v. VIRGINIA SALGADO Y ACUÑA

    027 Phil 631

  • G.R. No. 7896 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MCMICKING v. CRISANTO LICHAUGO ET AL.

    027 Phil 386

  • G.R. No. 8313 March 30, 1914 - JOSE MA. Y. DE ALDECOA v. JOSE FORTIS ET AL.

    027 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 8362 March 30, 1914 - JOSE PEREZ PASTOR v. PEDRO NOEL ET AL.

    027 Phil 393

  • G.R. No. 8375 March 30, 1914 - INTERISLAND EXPRESS CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    027 Phil 396

  • G.R. No. 8478 March 30, 1914 - LUIS ESPERANZA v. ANDREA CATINDING

    027 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 8527 March 30, 1914 - WEST COAST LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. GEO. N. HURD

    027 Phil 401

  • G.R. No. 8579 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. RUPERTO T. SANTIAGO

    027 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. 8654 March 30, 1914 - EUGENIO RESOLME ET AL. v. ROMAN LAZO

    027 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. 8689 March 30, 1914 - LIBRADO MANAS ET AL. v. MARIA RAFAEL

    027 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. 8781 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO JAVIER DICHAO

    027 Phil 421

  • G.R. No. 8785 March 30, 1914 - UY ALOC ET AL. v. CHO JAN LING ET AL.

    027 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. 9178 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE LASTIMOSA

    027 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 9217 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO MARTINEZ

    027 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. 9294 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. EULOGIO SANCHEZ

    027 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. 9329 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNINO AGUAS

    027 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. 9397 March 30, 1914 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE VAYSON

    027 Phil 447