G.R. No. 27692, March 19, 1928
FRANCISCO MUNIZ, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ARISTON MUNIZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, children of the late Francisco Muniz, filed an action to recover possession of eight parcels of land that were originally owned by their grandfather, Juan Muniz. Upon Juan’s death, the properties were inherited by his three children: Francisco, Ariston, and Manuela. In 1895, a possessory information proceeding was instituted, and for convenience, all the family lands were registered solely in the name of the eldest brother, Francisco. A verbal partition of the properties was made in 1896, and the siblings took possession of their respective shares. Francisco died in 1901. In 1910, his widow and most of his adult children entered into a written agreement with Ariston and Manuela, expressly ratifying the 1896 verbal partition. The plaintiffs later sued, basing their claim solely on the possessory information title in their father Francisco’s name, arguing it proved exclusive ownership. The defendants countered that the possessory information was merely for administrative convenience and that the subsequent partition and their long possession governed. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed, assigning errors primarily related to the trial court’s admission of depositions from the elderly defendants and its factual findings.

ISSUE

1. Did the trial court commit a reversible error in admitting the depositions of the defendants Ariston and Manuela Muniz?
2. Did the trial court err in ruling that the evidence of possession and the ratified partition prevailed over the possessory information title?

RULING

1. No, the trial court did not err in admitting the depositions. While the procedure for taking the depositions contained an irregularity (the affidavit for taking depositions was not formally served on the plaintiffs), this defect was not fatal. The plaintiffs’ counsel had actual notice, was present during the deposition-taking, and conducted cross-examination. The court, in its discretion, granted a continuance to allow the depositions due to the advanced age and inability of the defendants to travel. The Supreme Court held that mere formal defects that do not prejudice the substantial rights of a party should be disregarded.
2. No, the trial court did not err in its substantive ruling. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s findings of fact. The possessory information title, standing alone, was not conclusive evidence of ownership. The court gave credence to the defendants’ evidence showing that the registration in Francisco’s name was a mere formality for convenience, that a valid verbal partition had occurred, and that this partition was later ratified in writing by most of the plaintiffs themselves in 1910. The long and exclusive possession of the defendants of their allotted shares, coupled with the ratified agreement, prevailed over the technical title from the possessory information. The other alleged errors involved questions of fact which the Supreme Court found no reason to disturb.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The appealed judgment is affirmed with costs against the appellants.