HERMOGENES BAUTISTA, plaintiff and appellant vs.

APOLONIO APARECE,
defendant and appellee

1954-08-23 | No. 7793-R

APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Bohol. Alo, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Francisco E.F. Remotigue for plaintiff and appellant.

Victoriano Tirol for defendant and appellee.

Peña, J.:

As owner of the portions of land designated as II, III and VIII in the sketch (Exhibit A), Nicolás Añasco sold the
same in 1923 to Valentín Justiani in whose name it was assessed in 1923 (Exhibit 5). In the same year,
Valentin sold this property to Claudio Justiniani and it was accordingly in the latter’s name (Exhibit 4). On
October 12, 1935, Claudio Justiniani executed a public instrument (Exhibit 2) whereby he sold the same
property for ?100 to Apolonio Aparece in whose name it was assessed since 1935 (Exhibit 3). Apolonio was
in possession of the land from the time he acquired it, but in the month of June 1944, Hermogenes Bautista
illegally entered a part of said land (portions III and VIII) and took possession thereof. Cosequently, Apolonio
filed a complaint with the guerilla forces then operatin gin the province of Bohol and when the case was called
for hearing, and after an inspection was made by a guerilla officer, Hermogenes Bautista executed a public
instrument (Exhibit 1), the translation of which (Exhibit 10A) reads as follows-----

“I, Hermogenes Bautista, 64 years old, resident of Daet, Inabanga North, Bohol, promise before the law
that the land controverted before the Military Office will be returned by me to Mr. Apolonio Aparece in
good will and without any grudge that will ever happen. I hereby recognize the decision according to
Military law to be just and true; and henceforth, I hereby recognize Mr. Apolonio Aparece, after I have
delivered the controverted land to him to be the true owner as decided according to law. Thence, in the
Military Office, I promise that there will be no more trouble that will happen between me and Mr.
Apolonio Aparece.
In truth for all my sworn statements, I affix my right and left thumb marks this 22nd day of October, 1944
at Napo, Inabanga, Bohol.
HERMOGENES BAUTISTA
(Marked) (Marked)
Right Thumb Left Thumb
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 22nd day of October, 1944, at Napo, Inabanga, Bohol.
(Sgd.) ANTONIO P. QUERON
First Lieut., Infantry
Ex-O-S-2”

Thus, the possession of the land was restored to Apolonio Aparece on October 22, 1944.

Claiming that the following described property rightfully belongs to him-----

“A parcel of land bounded on the N., by Valentin Justiniani and Gavino Ceniza; E., by Andres Bautista
and Pablo Aparici; S., Patricio Bautista; W., Nicolas Añasco and Pablo Estoze, situated at Lopacan,
Inabanga, Bohol, with an area of 2 hectares, 48 ares and 75 centares and assessed for taxation
purposes at ?160, commencing with the year 1922 as per Tax Declaration No. 30821, in the name of
Honorario Añasco.”

| Page 1 of 3
And alleging that with the aid of armed men, with the use of forces, threat as well as intimidation, and
pretending to be the owner, Apolonio Aparece usurped on October 22, 1944, the northwestern portion of the
above-described parcel of land, particularly that part planted to rice, Hermogenes Bautista filed on November
27, 1945, a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Bohol. Alleging further that defendant’s failure to return
the property damaged him in the sum of ?300, and hat for the two harvests said defendant had enjoyed,
plaintiff would have realized ?500, the latter prays that judgment be rendered in his favor in the following
tenor-----

a. Declaring the plaintiff the true and absolute owner of that portion on the northern part of the parcel of land
described in paragraph II hereof, and having an area which could be planted with eight gantas of rice; and
as a consequence ordering the defendant, his agents or representatives, from doing acts of molestation to
the peaceful and quiet possession of the plaintiff over said premises;
b. Condemning the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of ?500 which is the value of the palay
harvested by the defendant for the last two harvests plus whatever amount that have been realized by the
plaintiff for the products of the land until complete delivery by the premises to plaintiff shall have been
made by the defendant;
c. Condemning the defendant to pay to the plaintiff damages in the sum of ?300.

In his answer, which was amended on June 19, 1948, defendant, as a special defense, states that the
piece of rice land referred to in paragraph III of the complaint is a portion of the parcel of land which he
acquired from Claudio Justiniani on October 22, 1935. And by way of counterclaim, defendant alleges that
while the land in question was in the wrongful possession of plaintiff and before he returned the same to
the defendant, he harvested therefrom fifteen cavans of palay with a total cost of ?562.50, and that as a
consequence of the action for the recovery of possession of the land, said defendant suffered the amount
of ?200 as damages. He, therefore, prays for the dismissal of the complaint and for the sum of ?562.50
representing the cost of the rice harvested by plaintiff and the further amount of ?200 as damages.
During the trial, the lower court motu propio appointed on Genaro Galon as commissioner who submitted
his report on August 10, 1947.
On October 3, 1950, decision was rendered, the dispositive portion of which is as follows:
“ For all the foregoing, the court renders judgment declaring that defendant is the owner of
portions III and VIII of the sketch (Exhibit A), which portions are enclosed within the lines marked
with red number 2, 9, 10, 11,12, 1, 2 of the sketch (Exhibit A). As corollary, the defendant is
absolved from the complaint.
There being no sufficient evidence with respect to damages, the court makes no special
pronouncement thereon.
The plaintiff shall pay the costs.”
From the aforementioned judgment, plaintiff appealed and now maintains that the lower court erred----
1. In admitting in evidence the document relinquishing the plaintiff’s ownership and possession
as embodied in Exhibit 1 and translated in Exhibit 1-A;
2. In the consideration of the report of the commissioner on the situation of the land of the
adjoining owners and the litigants; and
3. In not adjudicating ownership over the land in question to the plaintiff and in not condemning
the defendant to vacate the premises and pay damages and costs as prayed for in the complaint.
To convince us that the lower court erred in admitting in evidence Exhibit 1, the translation of which is
Exhibit 1-A, counsel for appellant stresses that this document was executed under duress, violence
and intimidation, in addition to the fact that the guerilla officer, before whom it was executed, had no
jurisdiction over the matter. This argument is beside the point. The test for the admissibility or
inadmissibility in evidence of a certain document is whether or not it is relevant, material or competent.
The document (Exhibits 1 and 1-A), which counsel for appellant wanted the lower court to have
rejected, is not only relevant but also material and competent to the issue of ownership between the
parties litigants. Relevant evidence is one that has any value in reason as tending to prove any matter
probable in an action. And evidence is said to be material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue
| Page 2 of 3
 as determined by the rules of substantive law and pleadings, while competent evidence is one that is
not excluded by law in a particular case. (Moran’s Comments on the Rules of Court, Vo. 3, pp.1-2,
1952 ed.) with these criteria in mind, we hold that the mere fact that Exhibit 1 was executed before a
guerilla officer does not make the same as irrelevant, immaterial or incompetent to the main issue
raised in the pleadings. Exhibit 1, considered together with the other evidence, documentary and oral,
satisfies us that the portions of land in question really belong to defendant Apolonio Aparece.
Moreover, contrary to appellant’s allegation that Exhibit 1 was signed under duress, violence and
intimidation, the record preponderantly shows otherwise, for Apolonio Aparece not only denied such
circumstances, but also testified in cross-examination, as follows---
Q. And when this Exhibit “1” was prepared, it was prepared in the camp of that Negros Force
at Lapacan is it not?
A. Their camp was established in Napo.
Q. Where was Hermogenes Bautista summoned previous to the signing of Exhibit 1?
A. It was Hermogenes Bautista who invited me to go with him to the camp at Napo, because,
according to him, he would return the land to me.
With respect to the consideration of the report of the commissioner by the lower court, suffice it to quote
hereunder the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Baltazar vs. Limpin, 49 Phil., 39---

“The trial judge, however, retains a discretion to accept the report of the referee in part and set it aside in part
or reverse it entirely even where no exceptions to the referee’s report are taken.”

As the last assignment of error is only corollary to the rest, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the same.

Wherefore, and no reversible error having been committed by the lower court, the appealed judgment is here
by affirmed with costs against the appellant.

It is so ordered.

Felix and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

| Page 3 of 3