JUANA GOLINGCO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. CONCEPCION PEÑA, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

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 Concepcion 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.

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 ordered 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.