1. PARTITION; REPORT OF COMMISSIONERS. — No charge of partiality or fraud or irregularity in the partition proceedings is made. It rarely happens in partition proceedings, where so many conflicting interests and imponderable factors of value, convenience and the like may enter, that all parties are satisfied. Where so much rests upon the informed opinion and sound judgment of impartial commissioners and an impartial trial judge, it would seem inexpedient for the appellate court to reverse their findings and confirm the report of a commissioner who stands alone in his recommendations, especially where, as in this case, the proceedings were entirely regular.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, approving a partitions of two tracts of land owned in common by the plaintiffs and the defendants and dismissing the plaintiffs’ demand for the sum of P22,011.62 claimed as an unpaid balance of the rents and profits of said land due to her by the defendant Antonio Vazquez Arias for the years 1923 to 1928, during which he was charged with the administration of the same. It appears that two tracts situated in Pinagsugalan, barrio of Santo Tomas, Jaen, Nueva Ecija, one containing 1676/10 hectrares, the other 195/10 hectares, are owned in common by the parties hereto as follows: the plaintiff Ana Verena Vazquez Arias, an undivided one- fourth interest; the defendant Antonio Vazquez Arias, an undivided one-fourth interest; the defendant Marcelina Arias, an undivided one- half interest.

On November 28, 1928, the court appointed the following commissioners to make the partition of said lands in the proportions mentioned, namely: Hipolito Valmonte, proposed by the plaintiff; Fernando Busuego, proposed by the defendants, and the clerk of the court, Bonifacio Guzman. On August 29, 1930, Commissioners Busuego and Guzman presented a report to the court in which they recited that they endeavored for a long time to bring about a partition of said lands by mutual agreement of all the parties. Having failed in this, all the commissioners and the parties were present on the land on March 16, 1929, when a thorough inspection was made. It appears that all of the land is cultivated (for palay) and irrigated from the waters of two esteros. After considering the value of the land, its productivity, accessibility and other special circumstances, the commissioners divided each of said parcels into three parts, giving to each party his or her just and equitable share taking all the circumstances into consideration. No objection is made to the partition of the smaller tract recommended by the commissioners, but the appellant insists that instead of lot No. 1 of the larger tract awarded to her by the commissioners, she should have lot No. 3 awarded to Antonio Vazquez by the commissioners. Commissioner Valmonte declined to sign the report of the majority. On October 6, 1930, he filed a separate report in which he asserted that lots No. 1 in both tracts assigned to Ana Verena Vazquez Arias were "altos y pobres en comparación con los que se recomiendan para ser adjudicados a Antonio Vazquez y Marcelina Arias, ademas de estar lejos de la nueva carretera," and he claimed that they were less in value and, therefore, the partition was unjust and unequitable.

At the hearing upon the report of the commissioners and the trial of this case all of the commissioners testified and the entire matter was thoroughly re