THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PETITIONER, VS. LEONCIO ABAD ET AL., OPPONENTS. LUCIO ONGSIACO ET AL., OPPONENTS AND APPELLEES; JUAN AROMIN ET AL., OPPONENTS AND APPEL…

The present appeals are taken from a decision of the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija, in regard to lots Nos. 1914, 2047, 2078, 2402,
2441, 2608, 2609, 2814, 2815, 2816, 2817, 2819, 2820, 2821, 2822, 2823,
2824, 2825, 2826, 2827, 2828, 2829, 2830, 2831, 2832, 2833, 2834, 2847,
2848, 2851, 2852, 2853, 2898, 2942, 2943, 2955, 2956, 2957, 2977 and
2978 in cadastral case No. 18 of that province (G. L. R. O. Record No.
390) and lots Nos. 2080, 2081, 2082, 2083, 2084, 2440, 2813, 2958, 2959
and 2966 in cadastral case No. 19 (G. L. R. O. No. 391).

The
only question before the court is whether the lots mentioned are
situated within the limits of the land previously registered in the
name of Marcelino de Santos in case No. 5550 of the Court of Land
Registration and which constituted a part of the hacienda
“Esperanza,” situated in the Provinces of Pangasinan and Nueva Ecija.
The registered title to said land now rests in the claimants Lucio
Ongsiaco, Paz de Santos, Isidoro de Santos, Consuelo de Santos, Jose
Mariano de Santos and Felipe de Santos according to transfer
certificate of title No. 109 of the Province of Nueva Ecija.

At the hearing of the cadastral cases a very large number of persons
claimed the lots in question alleging that they are situated outside of
the boundaries of the tract registered in said case No. 5550 and that
the claimants have acquired title to them by adverse possession. The
Director of Lands also presented an opposition claiming that a
considerable portion of the northeastern part of the land embraced in
cadastral case No. 19 is not covered by the decree in case No. 5550 and
is public land.

The court below found that lots Nos. 1914,
2047, 2078, 2402, 2441, 2608, 2609, 2814, 2815, 2816, 2817, 2819, 2820,
2821, 2822, 2823, 2824, 2825, 2826, 2827, 2828, 2829, 2830, 2831, 2832,
2833, 2834, 2847, 2848, 2851, 2852, 2853, 2898, 2942, 2943, 2955, 2956,
2957, 2977 and 2978 in cadastral case No. 18 and lots Nos. 2813, 2958
and 2959-B in cadastral case No. 19 are all included in the decree in
said case No. 5550 and are the property of Lucio Ongsiaco et al. From this adjudication the claimants Juan Aromin et al. appealed.

The court further held that a triangular strip along the northeastern
boundary of lot No. 2959 is outside of the land decreed in land
registration case No. 5550 and declared this strip public land,
designating it as lot No. 2959-A. From this portion of the decision
Lucio Ongsiaco et al. appeal.

The appeal of Juan Aromin et al.,
is, in our opinion, entirely without merit. Taking advantage of the
fact that the plan from which the land description in the decree issued
in case No. 5550 was taken is grossly erroneous and gives the area of
the land decreed as only 13,215 hectares, 51 ares and 34 centiares
while the cadastral plan shows that the area is nearly 15,700 hectares,
these appellants have sought to prove that the discrepancy between the
two plans is due to the fact that the cadastral plan embraces territory
not included in the decree.

Inasmuch as in regard to
boundaries and extent of lands in dispute, the monuments control
courses and distances as well as the calculated area, and as the
boundaries of the land decreed in case No. 5550 were carefully marked
during the Spanish regime with substantial brick monuments which
monuments were followed both in cadastral survey and in the survey for
the registration in case No. 5550, there can be no question that, with
the exceptions hereinafter noted, the land claimed by Lucio Ongsiaco et al., is the same land decreed in favor of Marcelino de Santos et al.,
case No. 5550. Considering the character of the monuments and the
practical impossibility of secretly removing them or changing their
position, the contention of the appellants Juan Aromin et al.,
that the cadastral surveyors in determining the lines of the survey
simply followed the indications of the employees of Ongsiaco et al., is worthy of but little consideration.

The questions involved in the appeal of Ongsiaco et al.,
in regard to the disposition made by the court of lot No. 2959-A are
not quite as clear as those of the other appeal, but considering the
evidence as a whole, we can find no error in the judgment of the court
below.

The parties agree that point M-3 on plan Exhibit H,
is the northeast corner of the land. A short distance in a
southeasterly direction from point M-3 there is an auxiliary monument,
M-19a. In the cadastral survey, the surveyor in tracing the
northeastern boundary line of the land ran a straight line from M-3
through M-19a prolonging the line to its intersection with the
southeastern boundary line of the land, at which intersection no
monument existed.

Shortly before the hearing of the case,
surveyor Cruz of the Bureau of Lands was specially sent to make a
careful investigation of this boundary. With the aid of the technical
description accompanying the original application in expediente No. 5550, as well as the notice of the monumenting of the hacienda
published in the old Manila Gazette in 1890, he succeeded in locating
on the bank of the Benituan River a principal monument consisting of a
molave post embedded in a block of brick and marked M-20 on plan
Exhibit H. This monument was overlooked by the cadastral surveyors who,
being guided exclusively by the auxiliary monument M-19a, gave
the line in question a more easterly direction than would have been the
case if they had discovered the principal monument M-20.

The
Director of Lands maintains that the true boundary as described in the
decree in case No. 5550 is a straight line from point M-3 to M-20,
while the appellants Ongsiaco et al., contend that the line
followed by the cadastral surveyors is the true line. In view of the
fact that the latter line is based merely on an auxiliary monument
while the line found by surveyor Cruz rests on a principal monument
described in the notice of the monumenting of the hacienda
“Esperanza” published in the Gazette in 1890 and apparently tallies
with the plan accompanying the application for registration in case No.
5550, we are of the opinion that the contention of the Director of
Lands is correct, that the line found by surveyor Cruz is the true line
and that the triangular strip of land lying between the two lines was
properly excluded by the court below.

The judgment appealed
from is affirmed, with the costs of each appeal against the respective
appellants jointly and severally. So ordered.

Johnson, Malcolm, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.
Villamor, J., did not take part.