Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1925 > March 1925 Decisions > G.R. Nos. 22828 & 22829 March 10, 1925 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO ABAD, ET AL.

047 Phil 573:



[G.R. Nos. 22828 & 22829. March 10, 1925. ]

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Petitioner, v. LEONCIO ABAD ET AL., opponents. LUCIO ONGSIACO ET AL., opponents-appellees; JUAN AROMIN ET AL., opponents-appellants.

Basilio Aromin for Appellants.

Engracio F. Clemena and Manuel V. Gallego for Appellees.


1. REAL PROPERTY; DISPUTED BOUNDARIES; RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF CONFLICTING ELEMENTS. — In regard to boundaries and extent of lands in dispute, the general rule is that courses and distances will yield to known, visible, and definite objects, whether natural or artificial, such as monuments or landmarks, but will control a call of quantity or area.



The present appeals are taken from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, in regard to lots Nos. 1914, 2047, 2078, 2402,2441, 2608, 2609,2 814,2815, 2816, 2817, 2819, 2820, 2821, 2822, 2823, 2824, 2825, 2826, 2827, 2828, 2829, 2830, 2831, 2832, 2833, 2834, 2847, 2848, 2851, 2852, 2853, 2898, 2942, 2943, 2955, 2956, 2957, 2977, and 2978 in cadastral case No. 18 of that province (G.L. R.O. Record No. 390) and lots Nos. 2080, 2081, 2082, 2083, 2084, 2440, 2813, 2958, 2959 and 2966 in cadastral case No. 19 (G.L.R.O. No. 391).

The only question before the court is whether the lots mentioned are situated within the limits of the land previously registered in the name of Marcelino de Santos in case No. 5550 of the Court Of Land Registration and which constituted a part of the hacienda "Esperanza," situated in the provinces of Pangasinan and Nueva Ecija. The registered title to said land now rests in the claimants Lucio Ongsiaco, Paz de Santos, Isidoro de Santos, Consuelo de Santos, Jose Mariano de Santos and Felipe de Santos according to transfer certificate of title No. 109 of the Province of Nueva Ecija.

At the hearing at the cadastral cases a very large number of persons claimed the lots in question alleging that they are situated outside of the boundaries of the tract registered in said case No. 5550 and that the claimants have acquired title to them by adverse possession. The Director of Lands also presented an opposition claiming that a considerable portion of the northeastern part of the land embraced in cadastral case No. 19 is not covered by the decree in case No. 5550 and is public land.

The court below found that lots Nos. 1914, 2047, 2078, 2402, 2441, 2608, 2609, 2814, 2815, 2816, 2817, 2819, 2820, 2821, 2822, 2823, 2824, 2825, 2826, 2827, 2828, 2829, 2830, 2931, 2832, 2833, 2834, 2847, 2848, 2851, 2852, 2853, 2898, 2842, 2843, 2942, 2843, 2855, 2956, 2957, 2957, 2977 and 2978 in cadastral case No. 18 and lots Nos. 2813, 2958 and 2959-B in cadastral case No. 19 are all included in the decree in said case No. 5550 and are the property of Lucio Ongsiaco Et. Al. From this adjudication the claimants Juan Aromin Et. Al. appealed.

The court further held that a triangular strip along the northeastern boundary of lot No. 2959 is outside of the land decreed in land registration case No. 5550 and declared this strip public land, designating it as lot No. 2959-A. From this portion of the decision Lucio Ongsiaco Et. Al. appeal.

The appeal of Juan Aromin Et. Al., is, in our opinion, entirely without merit. Taking advantage of the fact that the plan from which the land description in the decree issued in case No. 5550 was taken is grossly erroneous and gives the area of the land decreed as only 13,215 hectares, 51 are and 34 centiares while the cadastral plan shows that the area is nearly 15,700 hectares, these appellants have sought to prove that the discrepancy between the two plans is due to the fact that the cadastral plan embraces territory not included in the decree.

Inasmuch as in regard to boundaries and extent of lands in dispute, the monuments control courses and distance as well as the calculated area, and as the boundaries of the land decreed in case No. 5550 were carefully marked during the Spanish regime with substantial brick monuments which monuments were followed both in cadastral survey and in the survey for the registration in case No. 5550, there can be no questioned that, with the exceptions hereinafter noted, the land claimed by Lucio Ongsiaco Et. Al., is the same land decreed in favor of Marcelino de Santos Et. Al., case No. 5550. Considering the character of the monuments and the practical impossibility of secretly removing them or changing their position, the contention of the appellants Juan Aromin Et. Al., that the cadastra surveyors in determining the lines of the survey simply followed the indications of the employees of Ongsiaco Et. Al., is worthy of but little consideration.

The questions involved in the appeal of Ongsiaco Et. Al., in regard to the disposition made by the court of lot No. 2959-A are not quite as clear as those of the other appeal, but considering the evidence as a whole, we can find no error in the judgment of the court below.

The parties agree that point M-3 on plan Exhibit H, is the northeast corner of the land. a short distance in a southeasterly direction from point M-3 there is an auxiliary monument, M-19a. In the cadastral survey, the surveyor in tracing the northeastern boundary line of the land ran a straight line from M-3 through M-19a prolonging the line of the land, at which intersection no monument existed.

Shortly before the hearing of the case, surveyor Cruz of the Bureau of Lands was specially sent to make a careful investigation of this boundary. With the aid of the technical description accompanying the original application in expediente No. 5550, as well as the notice of the monumenting of the hacienda published in the old Manila Gazette in 1890, he succeeded in locating on the bank of the Benituan River a principal monument consisting of a molave post embedded in a block of brick and marked M-20 on plan Exhibit H. This monument was overlooked by the cadastral surveyors who, being guided exclusively by the auxiliary monument M-19a, gave the line in question a more easterly direction than would have been the case if they had discovered the principal monument M-20.

The Director of Lands maintains that the true boundary as described in the decree in case No. 5550 is a straight line from point M-3 to M-20, while the appellants Ongsiaco Et. Al., contend that the line followed by the cadastral surveyors is the true line. In view of the fact that the latter line is based merely in as auxiliary monument while the line found by surveyor Cruz rests on a principal monument described in the notice of the monumenting of the hacienda "Esperanza" published in the Gazette in 1890 and apparently tallies with the plan accompanying the application for registration in case No. 5550, we are of the opinion that the contention of the Director of Lands is correct, that the line found by the surveyor Cruz is the true line and that the triangular strip of land lying between the two lines was properly excluded by the court below.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with the costs of each appeal against the respective appellants jointly and severally. So ordered.

Johnson, Malcolm, Johns and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

Villamor, J., did not take part.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

March-1925 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 22682 March 2, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. PEDRO PEREJA

    047 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. 23236 March 2, 1925 - CHO CHUN CHAC v. MAXIMO F. GARCIA

    047 Phil 530

  • G.R. No. 22945 March 3, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. JOVITA V. BUENVIAJE

    047 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. 23226 March 4, 1925 - VICENTE SEGOVIA v. PEDRO NOEL

    047 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. 23061 March 6, 1925 - VICENTE ALDANESE v. CANUTO SALUTILLO, ET AL.

    047 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. 23153 March 7, 1925 - AGATON C. IBAÑEZ v. PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    047 Phil 554

  • G.R. Nos. 23189-23191 March 9, 1925 - ANDRES EUSEBIO, ET AL. v. PROCESO AGUAS

    047 Phil 567

  • G.R. Nos. 22828 & 22829 March 10, 1925 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. LEONCIO ABAD, ET AL.

    047 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 23244 March 10, 1925 - IRINEO FACUNDO v. JUAN POSADAS

    047 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 23241 March 14, 1925 - HENRY FLEISCHER v. BOTICA NOLASCO CO.

    047 Phil 583


    047 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 22042 March 17, 1925 - JUAN JAMORA v. JOSE JARANILLA

    047 Phil 617

  • G.R. No. 22948 March 17, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. FAUSTO V. CARLOS

    047 Phil 626

  • G.R. Nos. 23112-23114 March 17, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO REYES

    047 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 23126 March 17, 1925 - JOSE P. TINSAY v. JOVITA YUSAY, ET AL

    047 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 23172 March 17, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CELESTINO TAVERA, ET AL.

    047 Phil 645

  • G.R. No. 23608 March 17, 1925 - SALMON, DECTER & CO. v. TIMOTEO UNSON

    047 Phil 649

  • G.R. Nos. 22209 & 22210 March 18, 1925 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS DURANTE, ET AL.

    047 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 23175 March 18, 1925 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. JOAQUIN GARCIA, ET AL

    047 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 23392 March 18, 1925 - REMEDIOS JACINTO v. SANTIAGO MERCADO

    047 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. 23700 March 18, 1925 - BLOSSOM & CO. v. MANILA GAS CORPORATION, ET AL

    047 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 22822 March 19, 1925 - MIGUEL SOLER v. SEBASTIAN S. BASTIDA, ET AL

    047 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 23469 March 19, 1925 - J. A. WOLFSON v. SIDNEY C. SCHWARZKOPF

    047 Phil 680

  • G.R. No. 23109 March 20, 1925 - SANTIAGO GOCHANGCO, ET AL. v. R. L. DEAN

    047 Phil 687

  • G.R. No. 23154 March 23, 1925 - TAN BOC v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    047 Phil 691

  • G.R. No. 23892 March 23, 1925 - RAMON R. PAPA v. MUN. BOARD OF THE CITY OF MLA.

    047 Phil 694

  • G.R. No. 23921 March 30, 1925 - DOMINADOR GOMEZ v. PEDRO CONCEPCION

    047 Phil 717