THEDIRECTOROFLANDS, applicant and

appellee,vs.THEROMANCATHOLICARCHBISHOPOF
MANILA,objectorandappellant.JUSTADEGUZMANET
AL.,objectorsandappellees.
1.1.CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS;NATURE;TRIALS.A
cadastral petition is in the nature of a proceedingin
rem,promotedbytheDirectorofLands,somewhatakintoa
judicialinquiryandinvestigationleadingtoajudicialdecree.
1.2.ID.;ID.;ID.Inonesense,incadastralproceedings,there
isnoplaintiffandthereisnodefendant.Inanothersense,the
Government is the plaintiff and all the claimants are
defendants.
1.3.ID.;ID.;ID.The usual rules of practice, procedure, and
evidencegovernregistrationproceedings.
1.4.PLEADING AND PRACTICE;ORDER OF
TRIAL;REBUTTALEVIDENCE.Thestrictruleisthatthe
plaintiffmusttryhiscaseoutwhenhecommences.
1.6.ID.;ID.;ID.A relaxation of the rule is permitted in the
sounddiscretionofthecourt.
121
VOL.41,OCTOBER27,1920.
121
DirectorofLandsvs.RomanArchbishopofManila.
1.6.ID.;ID.;ID.Theproperrule,fortheexerciseofdiscretion
by the court, is that material testimony should not be
excluded,becauseofferedbytheplaintiffafterthedefendant
hasrested,althoughinrebuttal,unlessithasbeenkeptback
byatrick,andforthepurposeofdeceivingthedefendantand
affectinghiscaseinjuriously.
1.7.ID.;ID.;ID.While in the Philippine Code of Civil
Procedurethegeneralruleisrightly recognized,yetitalso
authorizesthejudge"forspecialreasons"tochange'theorder
ofthetrialand"forgoodreason,inthefurtheranceofjustice"
to permit the parties "to offer evidence upon their original
 case.".(Sec.132.)
1.8.ID.;ID.;ID.;CADASTRAL PROCEEDINGS.The trial
opened with a stipulation that the composition title of the
church with the Spanish Government included the land in
question.Thechurchpresentedonewitnessandrested.The
private oppositors then called their respective witnesses to
provetitlebypossession,andrested.Counselforthechurch
thereupon made an offer to present additional testimony
intendedtoshowthatthepossessionoftheprivateclaimants
had been interrupted and that it was merely possession
through the tolerance of the church.Held:That the offer of
counselforthechurchcouldproperlybeclassifiedasrebuttal
evidence and that in the interest of justice and the
ascertainmentofthetruth,itshouldhavebeenreceived.
APPEAL from a judgmentofthe CourtofFirst
InstanceofRizal.Barretto,J.
Thefacts,arestatedintheopinionofthecourt.
Hartigan&Welchforappellant.
GregorioC.Concepcionforappellees.

MALCOLM,J.;

In1913,cadastralproceedingswerebeguntosettlethetitle
to a considerable tractofland situated in the
ProvinceofRizal. Thirteen
ofthe cadastral lots
wereprivate individuals. The judgmentofthe trial court
adjudicatedtheparcelsinquestiontotheprivateclaimants.
From this judgment both
theRomanCatholicArchbishopofManilaand the
municipalityofCaintaappealed,butsubsequently
122
122
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
DirectorofLandsvs.RomanArchbishopofManila.
theappealofthelatterwasdismissedforfailuretoprosecute.
The contest has thus narrowed down to one between the
Churchasappellantandvariousindividualsasappellees.
A ruling as to fourofthe lots can quickly be made. By
stipulationduringthetrial,andbyadmissionofcounselfor
appellant,PolicarpioBuenviajeisconcededtohavetitletolot
2187.Astolot2186,theonlyevidencebeforeus,confirmedby
thefindingsofthetrialcourt,is,thatMamertaRoxaswent
intopossessionofthesamein1895;andwhencounselforthe
Churchmadehisoffertopresentrebuttaltestimony,hefailed
tomentionthislot.Likewise,astolots2213and2214,the
onlyevidencebeforeus,confirmedbythefindingsofthetrial
court,is,thatAntonio,Benito,andGervasiodelaPazwent
into possessionofthesame in 1896; therecordstates that
"ambas partes dan por terminadas sus pruebas," while
counsel for the Church in making his offerofrebuttal
testimonyagainfailedtoincludethesetwolots.
Amoredifficultsituationhasarisenwithreferencetothe
nine remaining cadastral lots. To understand it, a brief
narrationofthe courseofthe proceedings in the trial court
willhavetobemade.
The trial as to the land now before us opened with a
stipulation to the effect that the composition titleofthe
ChurchwiththeSpanishGovernmentincludedthisland.The
Church presented one witness and rested. The private
oppositors then called their respective witnesses. Each
endeavoredtoprovetitlebypossession,bestunderstoodby
thefollowingtable:
ParcelNo.
Oppositor.
Possessionbegan.
Actsofpossession.
2176,2191,2182............
JustadeGuzman...................
 1895
Plantedrice;paidtaxes.
2178,2180,2190............
MelecioS.Buenaventura......
1882
Plantedrice.
2184,2185.....................
JustoS.Buenaventura..........
1885
Cultivationandharvest.
2192...............................
JustoJavier..........................
1885
Plantedrice;harvested.
CounselfortheChurch,thereupon,madeanoffertopresent
additionaltestimonywithreferencetolots2176,
123
VOL.41,OCTOBER27,1920.
123
DirectorofLandsvs.RomanArchbishopofManila.
2178,2180,2182,2184,2185,2190,2191,and2192,orthe
lots above enumerated in the table. Three witnesses were
called to the stand, but each time, before any pertinent
testimonycouldbesecuredfromthem,anobjectionwasmade
by counsel for the oppositors that the proof related to the
evidenceinchiefoftheChurch,andthiswassustainedbythe
court.
Toresolvethefactsintotheirsimplestterms,itisevident
that when an admission was madeofthe royal title, the
Church had shown that it was the legitimate ownerofthe
landtowhichitrefers.Themostperfecttitlecould,however,
be lost by abandonment. When, therefore, the private
oppositorsshowedpossessionfortheprescriptiveperiod,they
hadmadetheircase,andtheburdenofproofhadshifted.To
overcome this burden, it was then incumbent upon the
Church to demonstrate that such possession had been
interrupted, or that it was merely possession through the
toleranceoftheChurch.
This brings us to the specific
considerationofassignmentoferrorNo.2oftheappellantto
theeffectthatthecourterredinrefusingtoadmitevidence
tendered by this claimant andappellant in answer to rival
claims.Acorrectrulingcanmostappropriatelybearrivedat
by a considerationofthe natureofcadastral proceedings,
with reference to the usual rulesoftrial practice and
evidence.
Theobjectofacadastralpetition,asallknow,is,thatthe
title to the various! lots embraced in the survey may be
settledandadjudicated.Itisinthenatureofaproceedingin
rem,promotedbytheDirectorofLands,somewhatakinto
a judicial inquiry and investigation leading to a judicial
decree. In one sense, there is no plaintiff and there is no
defendant.Inanothersense,theGovernmentistheplaintiff
andalltheclaimantsaredefendants.(ActNo.2259,sec.10.)
Thetrialisconductedinthesamemannerasordinarytrials
andproceedingsintheCourtofLandRegistration.(Sec.11.)
As to this court, now abolished, the Land Registration Act
providesthatit"shallconform,as
124
124
PHILIPPINEREPORTSANNOTATED
DirectorofLandsvs.RomanArchbishopofManila.
near as may be, to the practice in special proceedings in
courtsoffirst instance." (Act No. 496, sec. 2.) The
CodeofCivilProcedure,whichisthusbroughtintorelation
withtheCadastralAct,prescribestheorderinwhichthetrial
must proceed. (Secs. 56, 132.) The usual rulesofpractice,
procedure,andevidencegovernregistrationproceedings.
Obviously,orderlyproceduremustbefollowedifinjurious
surprises and annoying delays in the
administrationofjusticearetobeavoided.Evidencecannot
begivenpiecemeal.Thestrictruleisthattheplaintiffmust
try his case out when he commences. Nevertheless, a
relaxationofthe rule is permitted in the sound
discretionofthe court. "The proper rule for the
exerciseofthis discretion," it has been said by an eminent
author,"is, thatmaterialtestimony should notbeexcluded
becauseofferedbytheplaintiffafterthedefendanthasrested,
althoughnotinrebuttal,unlessithasbeenkeptbackbya
trick, and for the purposeofdeceiving the defendant and
affecting his case injuriously." (1 Thompson on Trials, sec.
346.)
TheseprinciplesfindtheirechoinPhilippineremediallaw.
Whilethegeneralruleisrightlyrecognized,theCodeofCivil
Procedure authorizes the judge "for. special reasons," to
change the orderofthe trial, and "for good reason, in the
furtheranceofjustice,"topermittheparties"toofferevidence
upon their original case." (Sec. 132.) These exceptions are
made stronger when one considers the
characterofregistrationproceedingsandthefactthatwhere
somanypartiesareinvolved,andactionistakenquicklyand
abruptly, conformity with precise legal rules should not
always be expected. Even at the riskofviolating
legalformul,an opportunity should be given to parties to
submit additional corroborative evidence in supportoftheir
claimsoftitle, if the endsofjustice so require.
(Rodriguezvs.DirectorofLands[1915],31 Phil.,
272;Governmentofthe Philippine
Islandsvs.Abural[1919],39Phil.,996.)
125
VOL.41,OCTOBER27,1920.
125
Palancavs.CityofManila,andTrinidad.
We believe that the off erofcounsel f or the Church could
properlybeclassifiedasevidenceindenialofanaffirmative
fact;butthatevenifnottechnicallyrebuttalevidence,yetin
the interestofjustice and the ascertainmentofthe truth it
shouldbereceived.Whethersuchevidencewouldbesufficient
to overcome the case which exists in favorofthe
claimantsoftheninelotscannotnowbedetermined.
InsofarasthejudgmentrelatestolotsNos.2186,2187,
2213,and2214,itisaffirmed,andinsofarasitrelatestolots
Nos. 2176, 2178, 2180, 2182, 2184, 2185, 2190, 2191, and
2192,itisreversed,andtherecordshallbereturnedtothe
lower court for the takingofadditional evidence under the
offerofcounsel for the Church found on page 83ofthe
stenographic notes. No finding as to costs is made in this
instance.Soordered.
Mapa, C. J.,Johnson,Araullo,Avancea,andVillamor,
JJ.,concur.
Judgmentaffirmedinpartandreversedinpart.

_______________
Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

[No. L-2269. 14 March 1950]

FABIAN B. S. ABELLERA, plaintiff and appellant, vs. NARCISO DE GUZMAN ET
AL., defendants and appellees.
1.COURTS; CADASTRAL COURT; AUTHORITY AS TO DAMAGES.The cadastral
court possesses no authority to award damages, for its power is confined to the
determination as to whether
739

VOL. 85, MARCH 14, 1950

739
Abellera vs. De Guzman
the claimants are really entitled to the lots, as alleged in their answers; and, after finding
that they are, to the confirmation of their title to, and registration of, the lots in their
name.
2.ID.; ID.; EJECTMENT; EXTENT OF JURISDICTION.Where there is a case for
ejectment between parties who, one against the other, claim the same parcel of land or lot
in a cadastral case, it has been customary or the practice of courts to hold a joint hearing
of both the ejectment and the cadastral cases in which the same parcel of land is litigated
and to render a decision in both cases in its double role, as court of first instance of
general jurisdiction and as cadastral court of limited jurisdiction.
APPEAL from an order of the Court of First Instance of La Union. Panlilio, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Fabian B. S. Abellera for appellant.
Benito D. Diaz for appellees.
PADILLA, J.:

On 22 March 1918 this Court affirmed a judgment rendered by the court of first instance
of La Union dismissing the complaint, by which the plaintiff sought to eject nineteen
alleged trespassers or squatters from a tract of land described in the complaint, "on the
ground that plaintiff failed to establish title in himself to the hacienda upon which he
could maintain an action of ejectment." Plaintiff claimed title to the hacienda by virtue of
a donation which he failed to accept in a public instrument as required in article 633 of
the Civil Code (Abellera vs. Balanag, 37 Phil., 865). After the dismissal of the complaint,
the plaintiff brought another action against the same defendants for ejectment (civil case
No. 936 of the court of first instance of La Union). This second action was dismissed, on
the ground that the title to the tract of land from which he sought to eject the defendants
might well be litigated in the cadastral case then pending in the same court which
included the tract of land, divided into lots and claimed by both the plaintiff and the
defend-
740

740
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Abellera vs. De Guzman
ants, the court of first instance being of the opinion that, should title to the tract of land be
confirmed and decreed in the name of the plaintiff, the latter could bring an action against
the defendants for damages. From this order of dismissal, the plaintiff did not appeal.
When in the cadastral case, however, the answers of the plaintiff claiming the lots, into
which the tract of land claimed by him as his property had been divided, were striken out
and he was prevented from presenting evidence to prove his title to the tract of land or to
the lots into which it had been divided, he applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari, which was granted (Fabian B. S. Abellera vs. Hon. Meynardo M. Farol,
Narciso de Guzman et al., G. R. No. 48480, 30 July 1943).1 This Court in the last
mentioned case reversed the order of the respondent cadastral court and directed it to
allow the petitioner "to present evidence to prove his claim over the lots in question;"
and, commenting on the judgment rendered in the previous case (Abellera vs. Balanag,
supra), it made the following pronouncement: "* * * and we clearly refused to prevent
Abellera from instituting a new action based upon his assertion that he had acquired title
to the estate since the dismissal of his original action." So the plaintiff's claim in the
cadastral case No. 5 of the municipality of Aringay, Province of La Union, to the lots into
which the tract of land was divided and from which he had sought defendants' ejectment
in the two previous actions brought by him in the court of first instance of La Union, was
pending when the record of the cadastral case was destroyed as a result of the battle for
liberation; and, in view of the failure of the interested parties or of the Director of Lands
to institute proceedings for its reconstitution, on 5 February 1946 the plaintiff in the two
previous cases brought the present action for ejectment against the same defendants in the
two previous cases (civil cases Nos. 773 and 936 of the court of first instance of La
Union), or their successors-in-interest, in-
_______________

1 74 Phil., 284.
741

VOL. 85, MARCH 14, 1954

741
Abellera vs. De Guzman
cluding new or additional defendants who are the claimants of lots Nos. 5009, 5010 and
5540 in the cadastral case, which lie within the area of the tract of land claimed by the
plaintiff, and prayed for judgment declaring him the owner of the tract of land from
which he had sought defendants' ejectment in the two previous cases; for the possession
of the lots unlawfully occupied or detained by the defendants; f or the recovery of
damages from each and everyone of the defendants, amounting all in all to P40,000 and
costs; and for general relief. Instead of answering the complaint the defendants moved for
its dismissal, on the ground (1) that it states no cause of action; and (2) that there is
another action pending between the same parties for the same cause. On 18 June 1946,
acting upon the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, the trial court sustained the
second ground of the motion and dismissed the complaint without costs. In dismissing the
complaint, the trial court was of the belief that in the certiorari case (Fabian B. S.
Abellera vs. Hon. Meynardo M. Farol, Narciso de Guzman et al., G. R. No. 48480,
supra), this Court directed the plaintiff "not to file a new action, to have his claim over
the lots in question asserted, but to present evidence to prove his claim over said lots in
the Cadastral Proceedings, Cadastral Case No. 5, of Aringay, La Union." The plaintiff has
appealed from this order of dismissal to the Court of Appeals. After reviewing the
evidence, the latter court certified the appeal to this Court for the reason that only
questions of law are raised or involved.
Although the present action is entitled "Recurso Declaratorio" and in paragraph 7 of the
complaint, reference is made to section 1, Rule 66, of the Rules, it is really for ejectment
and damages. The plaintiff asserts title to the tract of land which was divided into several
lots when it was surveyed for the institution of cadastral proceedings and he filed answers
to claim the lots as his property in the cadastral case. It is the third action brought to
742

742
PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
Abellera vs. De Guzman
have the court declare that he is the owner and entitled to the possession of the tract of
land divided into lots in the cadastral case, which are also claimed by the defendants, and
to recover its possession and damages for the unlawful occupation and detention thereof.
The complaint may appear clumsily drawn up, but there is no question that it is not for
declaratory relief, as provided for in Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, but for ejectment
(reivindicacin) and f or damages. So, the first ground of the motion to dismiss the
complaint is not well taken. The court below has made no comment on it, for it must have
been of the opinion that the complaint states a cause of action.
The second ground for the dismissal of the complaint, to wit: that there is another action
pending between the same parties for the same cause, upon which the order of dismissal
appealed from is predicated, is likewise without merit, because even if the record of the
cadastral case, where the lots into which the tract of land was divided, could be
reconstituted, and for that reason plaintiff could present his claim and evidence to prove
his title to the lots, nevertheless, the cadastral court possesses no authority to award
damages, for its power is confined to the determination as to whether the claimants are
really entitled to the lots, as alleged in their answers; and, after finding that they are, to
the confirmation of their title to, and registration of, the lots in their name. In the present
action for ejectment, not only does the plaintiff seek to have a judicial pronouncement
that he is the owner of the tract of land which he claims is unlawfully occupied by the
defendants but also to recover damages. After hearing, the cadastral court may declare the
plaintiff the owner of the lots and entitled to their possession and may issue a writ
directing the sheriff to put him in possession thereof, but it cannot award damages to the
plaintiff. Where there is a case for ejectment between parties who, one against the other,
claim the same parcel of land or lot in a cadastral case, it has
743

VOL. 85, MARCH 15, 1950

743
People vs. Ganal
been customary or the practice of courts to hold a joint hearing of both the ejectment and
the cadastral cases in which the same parcel of land is litigated and to render a decision in
both cases in its double role, as court of first instance of general jurisdiction and as
cadastral court of limited jurisdiction.
The other question which might have been raised is whether the judgment rendered in the
first case between the same parties, as reported in Volume 37, p. 865, of the Philippine
Reports, bars the institution of the present action. In view of the fact that the defendants
did not rely on that ground in their motion to dismiss, we do not deem it proper to take it
up and pass upon it.
The order of dismissal appealed from is reversed, without pronouncement as to costs.
Ozaeta, Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
PADILLA J.:

I certify that Mr. Justice Torres voted for the reversal of the order appealed f from.
Order reversed.
________________

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.