G.R. No. L-4225
JUSTO SIPING, representing his wife, Faustina Elefante, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANGEL CACOB, defendant-appellant.
April 1, 1908

FACTS:
Plaintiff Justo Siping, representing his wife Faustina Elefante, alleged that defendant Angel Cacob erected a fence on Elefante’s land, encroaching 1 meter and 20 centimeters beyond the true boundary line. The only issue was the true location of the boundary.

The parties entered into a solemn stipulation in open court, agreeing to nominate two individuals (Marcelino Siping and Pedro Directo) to measure the land according to a specific method: measure 50 meters from the northeast corner of Cacob’s land towards the northwest corner and 33 meters from the southeast corner towards the southwest corner, then draw a straight line between the terminal points. The stipulation explicitly stated that both parties “bind themselves to submit without recourse of any kind to the report of the commission.” If the existing fence did not align with this new line and showed encroachment by Cacob, judgment would be for Elefante; if it aligned or showed Cacob’s fence within his property, judgment would be against Elefante.

The appointed “commissioners” submitted a report. Paragraph one, signed by both, stated that measurements “from fence to fence” were 48.85 meters (north) and 31.63 meters (south), using the official municipal meter. The Supreme Court interpreted this to mean that the defendant’s fence stood within the agreed-upon boundary line, meaning it did not encroach on Elefante’s land. Other parts of the report (regarding different meters and curved lines) were deemed unresponsive.

The trial court disregarded this stipulation and the commissioners’ report, rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff. It appeared to believe the report was not final, treating the commissioners as court appointees similar to those in partition or referee proceedings.

ISSUE:
Did the trial court err in disregarding the solemn stipulation of the parties and the findings of the appointed “commissioners” regarding the boundary line, to which the parties had agreed to submit “without recourse of any kind”?

RULING:
Yes, the trial court erred. The Supreme Court held that the “commissioners” were not officers of the court but merely private individuals whom the parties employed to ascertain a fact according to a prescribed procedure. The parties had expressly agreed to accept this ascertained fact as the basis for judgment, binding themselves “without recourse of any kind” to the report.

Paragraph one of the commissioners’ report, which both signed and which was responsive to the agreement, clearly indicated that the defendant’s fence was within his own property, several meters back from the boundary line as defined by the stipulated measurements. Under the terms of the stipulation, this finding mandated judgment against the plaintiff Elefante.

The trial court’s duty was to enter judgment in favor of the defendant for costs, in accordance with the solemn stipulation (Sec. 134, Code of Civil Procedure). The extraneous parts of the report (paragraphs 2 and 3) were correctly disregarded by the Supreme Court as non-responsive.

Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was reversed. Judgment was ordered to be entered in favor of the defendant for costs in the trial court.