ANA VERENA VAZQUEZ ARIAS AND MANUEL COLET, PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. ANTONIO VAZQUEZ ARIAS AND MARCELINA ARIAS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

This
is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija, approving a partition 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 167 6/10 hectares, the other 19 5/10 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 comparacion 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
reexamined by the trial judge. His decision (Bill of Exceptions, pp.
22-47) is a thorough and convincing review of all the factors and
considerations that were or should have been taken into account in
making the partition of the said larger tract of land. He concluded
that the partition recommended by the majority of the commissioners was
not only just and equitable but in every way convenient to all of the
parties. Indeed, we may add that there are indications in the record
that the commissioners and the trial court were not only fair but
specially considerate of the plaintiff. 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.

With relation to the
accounting as to which the plaintiff alleges in effect that the
administrator Antonio Vazquez Arias has defrauded her to the extent of
P22,011.62, we have carefully examined the record and concur in the
finding of the trial court that the inexact estimates of the tenants as
to the number of cavanes of palay that were produced during
the years 1923 to 1928 cannot prevail against the books of account of
the administrator Antonio Vazquez Arias, in which the entries of
receipts and expenditures were made in the due course of the business.
It appears from the administrator’s book of accounts that in each year
from 1923 to 1928, the plaintiff received her due share of the profits
of the estate, and there is, therefore, no merit in the second count of
the plaintiff’s petition.

The judgment is affirmed with costs against the appellants.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Abad Santos, and Diaz, JJ., concur.