Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-48463 July 10, 1942
JUAN MAGBANUA and FELICISIMA PINEDA, petitioners,
vs.
ARSENIO DIZON, Judge of First Instance of Iloilo, and THE DIRECTORS OF LANDS AND FORESTRY, respondents.
William E. Greenbaum and Luis G. Hofileña for petitioners.
Provincial Fiscal Roxas for respondents.
OZAETA, J.:
This is an original petition for certiorari to annul the following order entered by the respondent judge in land registration case:
In view of the motion for reconsideration filed by the Director of Lands under the date of March 10, 1941, and the opposition thereto filed by the applicants, the court is convinced that there has been a misunderstanding between the parties as to the portions claimed by the oppositors which the applicants were willing to exclude from their application. Consequently, the decision rendered on August 20, 1940, cannot be allowed to stand as it is.
Wherefore, the decision aforesaid is hereby set aside. Let the present case be set for hearing anew in the month of April.
It appears that in said land registration case the herein petitioners applied in the Court of First of Instance of Iloilo for the registration of one parcel of land with an area of 15.3139 hectares. That application was opposed by the Director of Lands and the Director of Forestry on the grounds (1) that the applicants had no sufficient title to said land (2) that a portion thereof formed part of the provincial road. When the case was called for hearing, the following took place according to the minutes of the court session of August 16, 1940:
The applicants made it of record that they are willing to cede to the government that portion claimed by it based from the reports of the Bureau of Lands of Forestry and as shown on the sketch plan marked as exhibit 1, 2 and 3, all attached to the records of the case — Government.
Fiscal Zambrano manifested that in view of the segregation of the portion claimed by the government from the land sought to be registered by the applicant, the opposition of the government to said proceeding is settled.
The case was referred to the Clerk of Court of reception of the evidence offered by both parties, which was very much abbreviated in view apparently of the supposed agreement reached by the parties as to the exclusion from the application of the portions claimed by the Director of Lands and the Director of Forestry. According to the oppositors' exhibit 3, the parcel of land applied for by the petitioners has been divided into parcels A, B, C, and D — parcel B being a portion of the provincial road with an area of approximately ½ hectare and parcel D, a portion of 3 hectares covered by a homestead application.
In the decision which the court subsequently rendered, parcels A and C were ordered registered in the names of the applicants and parcel B was declared government property. The decision was silent as to parcel D. The dispositive part treads as follows:
Wherefore, the order of general default rendered in this case on April 26, 1940, is hereby confirmed and that the adjudication the registration of Lots A and C as shown on then sketch plan (Exh. "L"), be, as they are hereby ordered in the name in favor of the spouses, Juan Magbanua and Felicisima Pineda, Filipinos, of age and residents of the municipality of Potolan, Province of Iloilo, Philippines. Lot B is hereby declared property of the Government of the Commonwealth of Philippines.
The applicants are hereby ordered to submit an amended plan based upon the sketch (Exh. "L") duly approved by the Bureau of Lands, which with their corresponding technical description, will be submitted to this Court for approval so that issuance of final decree and title will be considered.
That decision was notified to the parties on August 23, 1940. The motion for reconsideration, based on the failure of the court to exclude parcel D, was filed by the Director of Lands on March 13, 1941.
Petitioner's contention is, that the respondent judge no longer had jurisdiction to entertain the motion for reconsideration and to enter the order question because his decision had become final. Such contention, we think is not well taken. In view of the necessity for the applicants to present a new plan as a result of their agreement with the oppositors whereby portions B and D were to exclude from the land sought to be registered, the decision could not acquire finality until the amended plan which the applicants were ordered in said decision to submit was presented and to approved by the court. Such a decision, which leaves something yet to be done by the parties and the court before it can be enforced has in various cases been declared by this Court to be interlocutory and not appealable. (See Ron vs. Mojica, 8 Phil., 328; Natividad vs. Villarica, 31 Phil., 172; Vicencio vs. Borja, 50 Phil., 148; Sancho vs. Lizarraga, 55 Phil., 601; Fuentebella vs. Carrascoso [promulgated May 27, 1942], G.R. No. 48102.)
The order assailed by the petitioners is hereby affirmed, with costs. Let the original record elevated here from the court below as per order of this Court of November 22, 1941, be returned thereto for further proceedings. So ordered.
Yulo, C.J., Moran, Paras and Bocobo, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
