G.R. No. L-9505; July 29, 1915
ANTONIO SORIANO, applicant-appellee, vs. PANTALEON AQUINO, objector-appellant.

FACTS:
On March 17, 1911, Antonio Soriano applied for the registration and inscription in his name of a tract of land known as Hacienda de Buenavista in Nueva Ecija. The application was later amended, reducing the area and dividing it into four parcels. Pantaleon Aquino objected, claiming ownership of a 14-hectare parcel, the southern half of which was allegedly included in Soriano’s plan. The Director of Lands also objected, claiming part of the land belonged to the government.

On September 3, 1912, the Court of Land Registration sustained Aquino’s objection and ordered the portion he claimed to be excluded from Soriano’s registration. Soriano moved for a new trial. On November 19, 1912, the court granted the motion, set aside its first judgment, and reopened the case for additional evidence. After a new hearing, and following the withdrawal of the Director of Lands’ objection, the court rendered a new judgment on May 29, 1913. This time, it ruled that the land claimed by Aquino was within the boundaries of the land originally granted by the state to Soriano’s predecessor-in-interest, Nicolas Fernandez. It therefore decreed the adjudication and registration of the entire land, including the contested portion, in favor of Soriano. Aquino appealed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court erred in granting a new trial, setting aside its original judgment, and reopening the case for additional evidence.
2. Whether the trial court erred in requiring Aquino to post a bond to stay execution of the judgment pending appeal.
3. Whether the trial court erred in ruling that the land claimed by Aquino is included within the boundaries of the land granted to Soriano’s predecessor.

RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

1. On the grant of a new trial: The Court held that the trial judge acted within his discretion and in accordance with Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A judge may grant a new trial upon motion of a party or on his own motion if he finds the evidence insufficient to justify the decision or that the decision is against the law. The order granting a new trial, being discretionary, is not appealable, and no abuse of discretion was demonstrated.

2. On the requirement of a bond: The Court held that the trial court acted within its discretion under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows the court to require a bond to secure the performance of the judgment as a condition for staying its execution pending appeal.

3. On the merits of the land claim: The Court found the evidence presented by Soriano to be complete and conclusive. Witnesses familiar with the locality testified that while an old highway once served as the boundary between the properties, that highway had ceased to exist. A new highway was opened within Soriano’s hacienda, and the old boundary was thus effaced. The land claimed by Aquino was, therefore, within the boundaries of the original grant to Nicolas Fernandez. The trial court did not err in including it in the decree of registration in favor of Soriano.

The appealed judgment was affirmed, with costs against appellant Pantaleon Aquino.