G.R. No. L-2801

FACTS:
This is an appeal from the Court of Land Registration. The petitioners-appellees, Crisanto Lichauco et al., filed an application for land registration. The respondents-appellants, Mariano Lim et al., opposed the application. During the proceedings, the appellants filed several motions, including: (1) a motion for adjournment of a hearing set for November 29, 1904; (2) a motion for an extension of the period to present evidence before the commissioner; (3) a motion for a new survey of the hacienda “El Porvenir”; and (4) exceptions to the court’s rulings on November 29 and December 3, 1904. The trial court denied these motions and subsequently rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners. The appellants assigned these denials as errors on appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial court committed reversible error in:
1. Delaying its ruling on the motion for adjournment;
2. Denying the motion for adjournment and extension to present evidence;
3. Denying the motion for a new survey; and
4. Pronouncing judgment without first deciding the appellants’ exceptions to its interlocutory rulings.

RULING:
The Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed the judgment of the lower court.

1. On the delayed ruling: The Court held that the appellants were not prejudiced by the court’s ruling on the motion for adjournment on the very day of the scheduled hearing. It was sufficient that the parties were heard on the motion before the proceeding continued.

2. On the denial of the motion for adjournment/extension: The denial of a motion for adjournment is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court under Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure and is not a proper subject of exception.

3. On the denial of a new survey: While Section 36 of Act No. 496 (Land Registration Act) authorizes the court to order a new survey, the issuance of such an order is discretionary. The Court found no abuse of discretion, as the existing survey of “El Porvenir” was conducted by official Spanish Government surveyors in 1886, and the appellants failed to present sufficient evidence to cast doubt on its accuracy. Furthermore, the motion was not filed timely, as it was submitted after the period for presenting evidence had lapsed.

4. On the undecided exceptions: The Court clarified that the purpose of an exception is to preserve an objection for consideration on appeal. It is not the duty of the trial court to formally “decide” exceptions to its interlocutory rulings before rendering a final judgment.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. Costs against the appellants.