LUIS RIVAYA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FELIX SAMSON, RAFAEL VILLANUEVA, ANICETO G. MEDEL, DEFENDANTS. FELIX SAMSON, APPELLANT.

The plaintiff commenced the present action on the 23d day of March, 1911, in
the Court of First Instance of the Province of Albay, to recover the possession,
as owner, of three parcels of land, more particularly described in the second
paragraph of the complaint, together with damages for the illegal detention of
the same.

To the complaint each of the defendants filed a separate answer. The
defendant Rafael Villanueva, in his answer, recognized the rights of the
plaintiff to the land in question.

The defendant Aniceto G. Medel answered, stating that he was ignorant of the
respective rights of the plaintiff and of the defendants, Villanueva and Samson,
and prayed the court to make an investigation, for the purpose of ascertaining
who was the real owner of the land, as between the said parties.

The defendant Felix Samson, in his answer, alleged that he was the owner of
certain parcels of land located in the same sitio as the land which the
plaintiff was attempting to recover and prayed that he be relieved from any
responsibility under the complaint.

Upon the issue thus formed, the cause was brought to trial on the 21st of
February, 1912. It appearing from the allegations of the petition and answer
that the only question presented to the court was one relating to the identity
of the lands in question, the parties agreed to the appointment of a
commissioner for the following purposes:

“1. To prepare a map or plan of the land showing each of the parcels as well
as their metes and bounds and their respective areas.

“2. To examine witnesses and take in writing their testimony as to the
several parcels of land and as to whom they belonged at the public sale that was
had.

“3. To determine whether or not the land which Felix Samson states in his
answer was bought by him is the same land described in the complaint of
plaintiff Luis Rivaya; and

“4. To set forth in his report all those facts the insertion whereof the
parties may request in writing.”

It was further agreed that the court should appoint Mr. Jose Sarte of the
pueblo of Ligao, Province of Albay, as said commissioner, for the purpose of
making an investigation and to report as soon as possible upon the questions
submitted to him.

It was further agreed that the court should render a final judgment upon the
report of the said commissioner.

On the 19th day of August, 1912, the said commissioner made his report. To
that report, the defendant, Felix son, objected and moved that the court order
the said commissioner to make a further investigation and another report. The
court granted the objection and the motion of the defendant Samson.

On the 28th day of September, 1912, the said commissioner made his second
report. To the second report the defendant Samson also objected. The lower
court, after hearing the arguments of the defendant Samson to the second report,
overruled said objection and rendered a decision upon the facts stated in said
second report of said commissioner.

The lower court found, from the facts stated in said second report, that the
plaintiff was the owner and entitled to the possession of the three parcels of
land described in his complaint and ordered the defendant Samson to return to
the plaintiff said parcels of land and to pay the costs. From that decision the
defendant Samson appealed to this court and made several assignments of
error.

The appellant devotes much space in his brief in attempting to show that the
lower court committed an error in basing his judgment upon the report of the
commissioner. It is true that the commissioner was not appointed in accordance
with the provisions of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions. (Sees. 135, 136.)
Nevertheless, the record shows that he was appointed by agreement of the
parties. The record also shows that the parties agreed that the judge should
base his decision upon the facts stated in the report of said commissioner.
While the appellant attempts to show that the commissioner did not consider all
of the proof which he presented, yet he does not attempt to show that, even if
the proof had been considered by the commissioner and had been presented to the
court, that it would in any manner have changed the result. The mere fact that
the commissioner considered unimportant some of the proof which the appellant
presented, which the appellant thought was important, is not sufficient to
justify a reversal of the judgment, unless and until it is shown that such proof
was in fact important and sufficient to overcome the evidence admitted. The
appellant makes no effort to show, admitting that all of the proof had not been
taken into consideration by the commissioner, that it was sufficient to counter
balance the proof which the commissioner did consider.

Some argument was adduced during the consideration of the cause to the effect
that, inasmuch as the commissioner had not been appointed in accordance with the
provisions of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, all of his acts were null
and that the cause should be reversed on that account. It is a well-known fact
that in many of the provinces of the Philippine Islands the courts are called
upon to consider questions relating to the title of lands which are situated a
great distance from the capital of the province where the coort is held, The
method adopted in the present case is one of great convenience to the court, as
well as to the parties litigant. To require witnesses to travel a great distance
for the purpose of giving their testimony in court, when, by the appointment of
a commissioner, their testimony may be taken in the community where they reside,
would be a matter of great inconvenience to them, and not only to them but to
the parties litigant. For the reason that the parties agreed that the testimony
should be taken before a commissioner and that the court should base his
conclusions upon the report of said commissioner, we find no good reason for
reversing or modifying the decision of the court, simply because one or the
other of the parties is not satisfied with the report of the commissioner.

We find nothing in the record which justifies a modification or reversal of
the judgment of the lower court. The same is therefore hereby affirmed, with
costs.

Arellano, C. J., Torres and Araullo, concur,

CARSON, J., with whom concurs TRENT, J.,
concurring:

I concur on the ground that the facts set forth in the so-called
commissioner’s report were facts stipulated by the parties upon which the case
was submitted for judgment.