G.R. No. L-9543 and L-9703; April 11, 1957
ASUNCION NABLE JOSE and AMPARO NABLE JOSE VDA. DE LICHAUCO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE RODOLFO BALTAZAR, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, et al., respondents.

MACARIO LICHAUCO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. RODOLFO BALTAZAR, Judge of the First Instance of Pangasinan, Tayug Branch, the DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The “Hacienda El Porvenir” was adjudicated and registered by Decree No. 1178 and Original Certificate of Title No. 7 in favor of Crisanto Lichauco and the Nable Jose sisters (Amparo, Asuncion, Salud) as co-owners, based on an 1886 plan by surveyor Aurelio Diaz Rocafull. In 1912, the Court of Land Registration ordered a new survey to properly locate the properties. The registered owners commissioned surveyor Zoilo Garcia, who prepared plan Psu-17590. After initial approval and issuance of a new title in 1923, the order was set aside due to lack of publication. In 1938, the Court of First Instance approved the amended Garcia plan, but the Supreme Court reversed this in 1940 (Lichauco et al vs. Director of Lands, 70 Phil. 69), holding that a relocation survey must follow the old corners of the Rocafull plan and that the Garcia plan improperly included public land and altered the decree. After reconstitution of records destroyed in the war, the Supreme Court resolved on March 11, 1952, to remand the case to carry out the 1912 order, instructing the lower court to adhere to the 1940 decision’s rulings. On remand, Judge Leaño ordered the Director of Lands to resurvey based on the Rocafull plan. Surveyor Zacarias Gatchalian performed the survey and submitted plan RS-364. Judge Baltazar, however, disapproved the Gatchalian plan because it exceeded the decree’s area and resembled the previously rejected Garcia plan, ordering instead a new relocation survey. The registered owners petitioned for certiorari and/or mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court committed a grave abuse of discretion in disapproving the Gatchalian survey plan and ordering a new relocation survey instead of allowing the petitioners to present evidence on the Gatchalian plan.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. It held that the 1952 resolution reaffirmed the principles of the 1940 decision: the authorized survey must be a relocation survey that follows the old corners of the Rocafull plan as closely as possible to approach the same area and configuration, and cannot materially depart from it or alter the original decree. The Court found that while petitioners had reason to complain about not being allowed to present evidence that the Gatchalian plan complied with the directives, the separate appeal was inapposite. To avoid further delay in litigation spanning over forty years, it was more expedient to allow the new relocation survey ordered by Judge Baltazar to proceed. The Court reserved the petitioners’ right to later show that the Gatchalian survey constituted a more accurate relocation survey. No abuse of discretion was found.