G.R. No. 17107 ; June 9, 1922
Matias Gonzalez, petitioner-appellant, vs. Ira L. Davis, et al., opponent-appellees.

FACTS

Matias Gonzalez applied for the registration of a parcel of land, claiming he acquired it by inheritance from his father, Francisco Gonzalez y Reinado, as part of the partition of the “Esperanza” estate. The estate, originally registered in his father’s name, was divided among the heirs. Due to surveying errors, the actual areas of the allotted portions differed from the intended partition. After surveying the portions of his step-siblings (some of whom are opponents), an excess of approximately 800 hectares contiguous to Matias’s portion was discovered. Matias had this excess surveyed (later amended to 774 hectares, 47 ares, and 82 centiares) and applied for its registration. Opponent Ira L. Davis claimed ownership of a portion (Lot A, 388 hectares, 12 ares, 51 centiares) of this excess land, alleging it was sold to him by Matias as evidenced by a document (Exhibit “Davis-1”). Matias denied the sale. The trial court ruled in favor of Davis. Matias appealed, assigning errors including the insufficiency of Davis’s opposition, defects in Exhibit “Davis-1” (lack of description and consideration), and that Davis obtained the document without consent.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in: (1) overruling Matias’s demurrer to Davis’s opposition; (2) giving credence to Exhibit “Davis-1” despite alleged defects; and (3) ruling in favor of Davis’s claim.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. (1) The demurrer was properly overruled as Davis’s opposition was sufficient; it was not necessary to describe a specific portion or specify the right in detail at that stage, as he claimed an interest in the whole land subject of the application. (2) Exhibit “Davis-1” was valid. The description of the land within it was sufficient for identification under Article 1273 of the Civil Code. The court found Davis’s uncontradicted explanations regarding the consideration adequate, and the document was recorded in the registry of deeds with Davis taking possession of the land. (3) The fourth and fifth assignments of error, being consequences of the previous ones, required no separate discussion. The judgment was in accordance with the facts and law.