EN BANC
[G.R. No. 41974. July 5, 1935. ]
LUDOVICO AREJOLA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GREGORIO LUNA ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.
Manly & Reyes for Appellants.
Solicitor-General Hilado for appellant Director of Lands.
Gabriel P. Prieto for Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. REFEREES; REPORT AND FINDINGS; JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH. — Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that upon the completion of the trial, the referee shall report, in writing, to the court the facts found by him and all such of his rulings as the parties shall request him to report; and section 140 provides that upon the filing of the report or as soon as conveniently may be thereafter, the court shall render judgment in accordance with the report, as though the facts had been found by the judge himself, unless the court shall, for cause shown, set aside the report, or order it to be recommitted to the referee for further findings.
2. ID.; ID.; RULE 31, COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE. — Rule 31 of the Rules of Courts of First Instance reads as follows: "Upon the filing of the report of commissioners in partition or expropriation proceedings or of a referee the parties shall be notified by the clerk, and they shall be allowed ten days within which to file exceptions or signify grounds of objection to the findings, if they so desire, unless a different period is fixed by the court."cralaw virtua1aw library
3. ID.; ID.; NOTICE OR REPORT AND FINDINGS. — Notice of the filing of the referee’s report must be sent to the parties for the purpose of giving them an opportunity to present their objections. Although it is true that in the present case the record does not affirmatively show that such notice was sent to the parties, it is also true that the referee’s report was filed almost eight months before the lower court acted on it. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is to be presumed that the clerk of the court performed his duty and notified the parties of the filing of the referee’s report. The parties had more than ample time in which to file their objections thereto. (Santos v. De Guzman and Martinez, 45 Phil., 646; Government of the Philippine Islands v. Ossorio, 50 Phil., 864.)
4. ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE REPORT. — In the present case the lower court, after considering the referee’s report and the evidence presented by the parties, adopted the findings of the referee and approved the report in its entirety. The defendants took no exception to the report, and as was held in the case of Santos v. De Guzman and Martinez, supra, they are bound by the findings and cannot be heard to dispute their truthfulness or escape the legal consequences flowing therefrom. Since we are required to accept the findings of the referee, which were adopted by the lower court, the decision appealed from must be affirmed.
2. ID.; ID.; RULE 31, COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE. — Rule 31 of the Rules of Courts of First Instance reads as follows: "Upon the filing of the report of commissioners in partition or expropriation proceedings or of a referee the parties shall be notified by the clerk, and they shall be allowed ten days within which to file exceptions or signify grounds of objection to the findings, if they so desire, unless a different period is fixed by the court."cralaw virtua1aw library
3. ID.; ID.; NOTICE OR REPORT AND FINDINGS. — Notice of the filing of the referee’s report must be sent to the parties for the purpose of giving them an opportunity to present their objections. Although it is true that in the present case the record does not affirmatively show that such notice was sent to the parties, it is also true that the referee’s report was filed almost eight months before the lower court acted on it. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is to be presumed that the clerk of the court performed his duty and notified the parties of the filing of the referee’s report. The parties had more than ample time in which to file their objections thereto. (Santos v. De Guzman and Martinez, 45 Phil., 646; Government of the Philippine Islands v. Ossorio, 50 Phil., 864.)
4. ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE REPORT. — In the present case the lower court, after considering the referee’s report and the evidence presented by the parties, adopted the findings of the referee and approved the report in its entirety. The defendants took no exception to the report, and as was held in the case of Santos v. De Guzman and Martinez, supra, they are bound by the findings and cannot be heard to dispute their truthfulness or escape the legal consequences flowing therefrom. Since we are required to accept the findings of the referee, which were adopted by the lower court, the decision appealed from must be affirmed.
D E C I S I O N
VICKERS, J.:
On March 13, 1929 Ludovico Arejola filed this action in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur to recover from the Director of Lands and nine homesteaders, whose names are not stated in the caption of the bill of exceptions, the title to and the possession of a parcel of agricultural land located in the sitios of Poctol, Buyo, Tahan, Pigvisitahan, Manati, Sagcahan, Nagadap and May-buri, in the barrio of San Jose, in the municipality of Minalabac, Province of Camarines Sur, having an area of 184 hectares, 71 ares, and 83 centares, and bounded on the north by the Bicol river and the land of Arsenio Valenciano and Alejandro Villanueva; on the east by the land of Tomas Basmayor and the Bicol river; on the south by the Bicol river, the Sibagat river, and the Taisan brook; and on the west by the land of Serafin Rojano, uncultivated lands, and the estero of Poctol, assessed at P11,080 in accordance with Tax No. 6192.
The Director of Lands in his answer denied the allegations of the complaint and alleged as a special defense that the land in question was part of the public domain and as such was under the direct disposition and management of the defendant Director of Lands; that said land had been applied for by several homesteaders, among them the other defendants in the case; that the plaintiff, recognizing the authority and power of the Director of Lands over lands of the public domain, filed in due form his protest in the Bureau of Lands against the homestead applications of the other defendants; and that after due investigation, and acting under the authority vested in him by law, the Director of Lands dismissed plaintiff’s protest, because his claim was found to be groundless and unsupported by any valid evidence or title.
The answers of the other defendants are not included in the bill of exceptions presented by the Director of Lands.
By agreement of the parties the trial of the case was referred to a referee, and with their consent the clerk of said court was appointed to act as referee. Upon the completion of the trial the referee filed the following report on July 11, 1933:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Esta es una accion para reivindicar nuevos lotes de terreno ocupados por los nueve primeros, respectivamente, de los 10 demandados, en virtud de solicitudes de homestead ya aprobadas por el otro demandado, el Director de Terrenos; el demandante alega que todos dichos lotes estan dentro del terreno descrito en el parrafo 2.
The Director of Lands in his answer denied the allegations of the complaint and alleged as a special defense that the land in question was part of the public domain and as such was under the direct disposition and management of the defendant Director of Lands; that said land had been applied for by several homesteaders, among them the other defendants in the case; that the plaintiff, recognizing the authority and power of the Director of Lands over lands of the public domain, filed in due form his protest in the Bureau of Lands against the homestead applications of the other defendants; and that after due investigation, and acting under the authority vested in him by law, the Director of Lands dismissed plaintiff’s protest, because his claim was found to be groundless and unsupported by any valid evidence or title.
The answers of the other defendants are not included in the bill of exceptions presented by the Director of Lands.
By agreement of the parties the trial of the case was referred to a referee, and with their consent the clerk of said court was appointed to act as referee. Upon the completion of the trial the referee filed the following report on July 11, 1933:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Esta es una accion para reivindicar nuevos lotes de terreno ocupados por los nueve primeros, respectivamente, de los 10 demandados, en virtud de solicitudes de homestead ya aprobadas por el otro demandado, el Director de Terrenos; el demandante alega que todos dichos lotes estan dentro del terreno descrito en el parrafo 2.
