GR 41550; (October, 1935) (Digest)
G.R. No. 41550 and 41551. October 12, 1935.
SANTIAGO ARENAS and his wife TOMASA ROSARIO, applicants-appellees, vs. DIONISIO ZAMORA, ET AL., oppositors-appellants.
FACTS
Two land registration cases were consolidated. In G.L.R.O. Record No. 15116, Santiago Arenas and his wife applied for registration of Lots 1 and 2. In G.L.R.O. Record No. 15136, Dionisio Zamora and others applied for registration of Lots 1 and 2. Lot No. 2 in both applications referred to the same land, creating a conflict. After the parties presented their evidence, the trial court, upon motion of the adverse claimants, appointed two court personnel (a stenographer and an interpreter) as commissioners, assisted by a surveyor, to conduct an ocular inspection of the contested land. The Zamoras opposed the inspection. The commissioners and surveyor submitted written reports. Without notifying the parties of these reports or allowing them to object or cross-examine the commissioners, the trial court relied heavily on these reports in its decision, adjudicating Lot 2 in favor of the Arenas spouses and excluding portions from the Zamoras’ application. The Zamoras appealed.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in delegating its fact-finding function to commissioners and in basing its decision on their ex parte reports without giving the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the appealed decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The trial court’s appointment of commissioners was not in accordance with Section 135 of the Code of Civil Procedure governing referees. Even if properly appointed, Rule 31 of the Rules of Courts of First Instance required that parties be notified of a referee’s report and given an opportunity to file objections. The court erred by treating the commissioners’ reports as conclusive evidence without allowing the parties to examine or cross-examine the commissioners, thereby depriving the appellants of their right to due process. The commissioners’ findings could only be properly considered if they were called as witnesses subject to cross-examination.
AI Generated by Armztrong.