GR 37694; (November, 1933) (Digest)
G.R. No. 37694 ; November 28, 1933
ANA VERENA VAZQUEZ ARIAS and MANUEL COLET, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ANTONIO VAZQUEZ ARIAS and MARCELINA ARIAS, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The parties are co-owners of two parcels of land in Nueva Ecija. Plaintiff Ana Verena Vazquez Arias owns an undivided one-fourth interest, defendant Antonio Vazquez Arias owns one-fourth, and defendant Marcelina Arias owns one-half. The plaintiffs filed an action for partition and to recover an alleged unpaid balance of rents and profits from the defendant Antonio, who administered the property from 1923 to 1928. The trial court appointed commissioners to partition the land. The majority report recommended a specific division, which the trial court approved. The plaintiff-appellant objected, claiming the lot assigned to her was inferior in value and location compared to those given to the defendants. The plaintiff also pursued a money claim for P22,011.62, alleging the administrator defrauded her of her share of the harvests.
ISSUE
1. Whether the partition of the land recommended by the majority of commissioners and approved by the trial court was just and equitable.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of P22,011.62 as her alleged unpaid share of the rents and profits from the administered property.
RULING
1. Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s approval of the partition. The Court found the proceedings regular and the trial judge’s decision, which thoroughly reviewed all factors, convincing. The partition was based on considerations of value, productivity, accessibility, and other circumstances. The Court deferred to the informed opinion and sound judgment of the impartial commissioners and the trial judge, noting it is inexpedient for an appellate court to reverse such findings absent charges of partiality, fraud, or irregularity.
2. No. The Supreme Court concurred with the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff’s claim for unpaid profits lacked merit. The inexact estimates of tenants regarding harvests could not prevail against the administrator’s books of account, which showed entries of receipts and expenditures made in due course of business. The records indicated the plaintiff had received her due share of profits for each year in question. The judgment was affirmed with costs against the appellants.
AI Generated by Armztrong.