GR L 24465; (April, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-24465 April 30, 1965
JUAN GOLINGCO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. CONCEPCION PEÑA, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
The plaintiffs-appellants, Juan Golingco et al., appealed from a final order of the Court of First Instance of Albay that approved a Commissioner’s report for the relocation of specific parcels of land (parcels 2 and 4 from the complaint, and parcels A and B from the amended complaint). The appeal was initially taken to the Court of Appeals but was certified to the Supreme Court as the issues involved were purely legal. The appellants contended that they sold only 16 hectares of their property to the appellee, Concepcion Peña, at a price of P100.00 per hectare. They argued that the Commissioner’s report should have stated the area of the land actually occupied by Peña to ensure execution of the revived judgment conformed exactly to the terms of the sale. They asserted the lower court erred in approving the report without this area determination.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in approving the Commissioner’s relocation report without requiring a statement of the area of the land actually occupied by the appellee, given the appellants’ claim that only 16 hectares were sold.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court, holding the appellants’ contention without merit. The Court noted that while the appellants’ answer claimed a sale of only 16 hectares, the lower court’s decision was silent on this matter. Importantly, the decision referenced a joint petition where the appellants had expressly recognized the appellee’s possession and ownership of the lands as alleged in the complaint and as admitted in their answer. Since the Commissioner relocated the lands actually in the appellee’s possession at the time, and this was not denied, the Court deemed it unnecessary for the report to specify the area. The relocation, as conducted, was sufficient to prevent any encroachment by the appellee upon the appellants’ remaining lands, which was the presumed purpose of the relocation. Costs were imposed on the appellants.