G.R. No. L-24465 - APRIL 1965 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-24465April 30, 1965 Juan Golingco, et al. vs. Concepcion Peña G.R. No. L-22176April 30, 1965 Rodolfo Carreon, et al. vs. Germanico Carreon, et al. G.R. No. L-22074April 30, 1965 Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-21589April 30, 1965 Martiniano Vivo vs. Francisco Arca G.R. No. L-21355April 30, 1965 Benjamin Garcia, et al vs. Eloy B. Bello, et al. G.R. No. L-21280April 30, 1965 Procorpio R. Morales, Jr. vs. Toriano Patriarca, et al. G.R. No. L-21263April 30, 1965 Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company vs. Perfecto A. Tabora G.R. No. L-21160April 30, 1965 Felisa Tayao, et al vs. Pascuala Dulay, et al. G.R. No. L-21066April 30, 1965 Maria A. Gayacao vs. Executive Secretary, et al. G.R. No. L-20730April 30, 1965 Perfecto Bonilla vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-20653April 30, 1965 Domingo Bautista vs. Jose Ma. Barredo, et al. G.R. No. L-20636April 30, 1965 Hernando Layno, et al vs. Rafael de la Cruz G.R. No. L-20553April 30, 1965 Chiok Ho vs. Compañia Maritima, et al. G.R. No. L-20547April 30, 1965 Cipriano Tuvera, et al vs. Pastor de Guzman, et al. G.R. No. L-20501April 30, 1965 British Traders' Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-20452April 30, 1965 Jose A. Arches vs. Aurora Billanes G.R. No. L-20310April 30, 1965 in re: Saw Cen.Saw Cen vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. Nos. L-20355-56April 30, 1965 Republic of the Philippines, et al vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. Nos. L-20300-01April 30, 1965 Antonio Dizon, et al vs. Juan de G. Rodriguez, et al. G.R. No. L-20148April 30, 1965 In re: Pablo Lee vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-20063April 30, 1965 Philippine Resources Development Corporation vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19996April 30, 1965 Wencesla Cacho vs. John G. Udan, et al. G.R. No. L-19973April 30, 1965 Lorenzo E. Macansantos, et al vs. Teofila Guinoo, et al. G.R. No. L-19970April 30, 1965 Federico Catapang vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-19926April 30, 1965 Koppel (Phil.), Inc. vs. Aurelio Javellana, Sr., et al. G.R. No. L-19649April 30, 1965 in re: Luis Yap.Luis Yap vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19580April 30, 1965 in re: Felix Tan. Felix Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-19331April 30, 1965 Victoria G. Capuno, et al vs. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Phil. G.R. No. L-19330April 30, 1965 General Insurance and Surety Corporation vs. Leandro E. Castelo, et al. G.R. No. L-19071April 30, 1965 People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Reyno, et al. G.R. No. L-18211April 30, 1965 People of the Philippines vs. Raymundo Maranan, et al. G.R. No. L-17962April 30, 1965 Republic of the Philippines vs. Blas Gonzales G.R. No. L-17744April 30, 1965 Rattan Art & Decorations, Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-17708April 30, 1965 Pacific Oxygen vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue G.R. No. L-16886April 30, 1965 Anacleto Trinidad, et al vs. Jose L. Moya, et al. G.R. No. L-15947April 30, 1965 Jose F. Aparri vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-19392April 14, 1965 Alexander Howden & Co., Ltd., et al vs. The Collector of Internal Revenue The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Juan Golingco, et al. vs. Concepcion Peña Rodolfo Carreon, et al. vs. Germanico Carreon, et al. Philippine Guaranty Co., Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. Martiniano Vivo vs. Francisco Arca Benjamin Garcia, et al vs. Eloy B. Bello, et al. Procorpio R. Morales, Jr. vs. Toriano Patriarca, et al. Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company vs. Perfecto A. Tabora Felisa Tayao, et al vs. Pascuala Dulay, et al. Maria A. Gayacao vs. Executive Secretary, et al. Perfecto Bonilla vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Domingo Bautista vs. Jose Ma. Barredo, et al. Hernando Layno, et al vs. Rafael de la Cruz Chiok Ho vs. Compañia Maritima, et al. Cipriano Tuvera, et al vs. Pastor de Guzman, et al. British Traders' Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Jose A. Arches vs. Aurora Billanes in re: Saw Cen.Saw Cen vs. Republic of the Philippines Republic of the Philippines, et al vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Antonio Dizon, et al vs. Juan de G. Rodriguez, et al. In re: Pablo Lee vs. Republic of the Philippines Philippine Resources Development Corporation vs. Republic of the Philippines Wencesla Cacho vs. John G. Udan, et al. Lorenzo E. Macansantos, et al vs. Teofila Guinoo, et al. Federico Catapang vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Koppel (Phil.), Inc. vs. Aurelio Javellana, Sr., et al. in re: Luis Yap.Luis Yap vs. Republic of the Philippines in re: Felix Tan. Felix Tan vs. Republic of the Philippines Victoria G. Capuno, et al vs. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Phil. General Insurance and Surety Corporation vs. Leandro E. Castelo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Reyno, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Raymundo Maranan, et al. Republic of the Philippines vs. Blas Gonzales Rattan Art & Decorations, Inc. vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, et al. Pacific Oxygen vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Anacleto Trinidad, et al vs. Jose L. Moya, et al. Jose F. Aparri vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Alexander Howden & Co., Ltd., et al vs. The Collector of Internal Revenue The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-24465 April 30, 1965
JUAN GOLINGCO, ET AL.,plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
CONCEPCION PEÑA,defendant-appellee.
Manuel M. Calleja for plaintiffs-appellants.
Moises C. Kallos for defendant-appellee.
DIZON,J.:
This is an appeal taken to the Court of Appeals from a final order of the Court of First Instance of Albay approving the report submitted by the Commissioner appointed for the relocation of parcels 2 and 4 described in paragraph 2 of the complaint, and parcels A and B described in paragraph 5 of the amended complaint. The Court of Appeals, however, certified it to Us on the ground that the issues involved are purely of law.
The record discloses that appellants' contention is that they sold to appellee only 16 hectares of their property at P100.00 per hectare. It is their contention in this appeal that the Commissioner who did the relocation should have determined and should have stated in his report the area of the land actually occupied by appellee Conception R. Peña, so that the execution of the revived judgment may be exactly in accordance with the sale made by appellants in favor of appellee and, the Commissioner not having done so, the lower court should not have approved his report.
We find appellants' contention to be without merit.1äwphï1.ñët
While it is true that their answer claimed that they sold only 16 hectares to appellee, the decision of the lower court is silent upon the matter. Moreover, said decision clearly states that in the joint petition submitted by the parties to said court, appellants had expressly recognized "the possession and ownership (of appellee) of the lands as alleged in the complaint and as expressly admitted to have been in her possession in paragraphs 8 and 10 of the answer filed by Atty. Isidro A. Vera" (see record on appeal, pp. 4 and 5).
As it is not denied that what was relocated by the Commissioner were the lands actually in possession of appellee at that time, we consider it unnecessary for his report to state the area thereof. The relocation, as made, is now undoubtedly sufficient to prevent any encroachment by appellee upon the remaining lands of appellants — as we suppose was the purpose of the relocation.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed, with costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.