GR L 16761; (October, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-16761; October 31, 1964
JOHN M. MILLER and EMILIO ESPINOSA, JR., applicants-appellees, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL., oppositors, ANSELMO IRENEA, ARTURO DE LA CRUZ, DOMINADOR MANGCAO, LUCAS FRANCISCO, CIPRIANO SEQUILLO, PEDRO TAGALOG, PONCIANO GARCIA, RODOLFO DE DIOS, ET AL., private oppositors-appellants.
FACTS
Applicants John M. Miller and Emilio Espinosa, Jr. sought registration of a 411-hectare parcel of land in Masbate. The Director of Lands, the Bureau of Public Highways, and thirty-five individuals opposed. At the initial hearing, the court declared all except the named oppositors in default. The private oppositors initially expressed verbal opposition and later, on July 29, 1958, filed a written but unverified opposition. The applicants proceeded to present their evidence and rested their case on August 20, 1958. Only on August 27, 1958, after the private oppositors had presented their first witness and undergone cross-examination, did the applicants’ counsel object to the lack of verification in the opposition and move for its dismissal. The lower court granted the motion, dismissing the unverified opposition.
ISSUE
Whether the applicants waived their right to object to the lack of verification in the private oppositors’ pleading by proceeding with the trial without timely objection.
RULING
Yes, the objection was waived. The Supreme Court set aside the lower court’s orders and remanded the case. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine of waiver and a substantive interpretation of procedural rules. Section 34 of the Land Registration Act ( Act No. 496 ) requires an answer to be sworn. However, this requirement is not jurisdictional but formal. An objection to a defect in verification must be made reasonably and before trial. Here, the applicants actively participated in the proceedings, completed their presentation of evidence, and only raised the defect after the oppositors had begun theirs. This conduct constitutes a waiver, as a party who proceeds to trial without objection waives formal defects in the adversary’s pleading.
The Court further clarified that an unverified opposition is not a nullity; it sufficiently confers legal standing upon the oppositor in court. This was established in prior rulings such as Malagum vs. Pablo and Nicolas vs. Director of Lands, which held that a written appearance with opposition constitutes substantial compliance, entitling the oppositor to notice and participation in the proceedings. Consequently, the technical defect, already waived, should not bar the private oppositors from asserting their claim. The Court emphasized that the lower court should have allowed the requested verification and proceeded to hear the case on its merits to properly determine the respective rights of the parties over the land.