G.R. No. 18104; June 10, 1922
JUANA MARTINEZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. JUANA TOLENTINO, ET AL., defendant-appellants.

FACTS

An action for partition of real properties was filed. The lower court decreed partition, awarding specific fractional shares to the parties, and appointed commissioners to effect the partition after the parties failed to agree. The commissioners submitted a report, which the trial court approved. The defendants-appellants appealed, alleging two errors: (1) the approved partition was not in conformity with the court’s decision, and (2) the report was approved without the defendants or their counsel having been heard. The appellants also raised a new point on appeal that one commissioner, Matias Neri, was absent and did not participate in preparing the report.

ISSUE

(1) Whether the partition made by the commissioners conformed to the court’s decision. (2) Whether the trial court erred in approving the commissioners’ report without hearing the defendants.

RULING

(1) Yes, the partition was made in accordance with the bases fixed in the decision. The Supreme Court examined the decision and the report and found the distribution complied with the proportionate shares awarded. The new objection regarding Commissioner Neri’s absence was not raised below nor specifically assigned as error and was deemed not worth considering. (2) No, the trial court did not err. The record showed the defendants’ counsel requested a copy of the report and a delay in the hearing. The court set a hearing date for the report. The defendants did not appear at that hearing. Their request for a copy had no support in law and was impliedly denied by the trial court. The order approving the report was affirmed.