You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1ec6?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[BONATO DINGLASAN v. MACARIO LARDIZABAL](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c1ec6?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c1ec6}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ G R No. 34345, Dec 05, 1931 ]

BONATO DINGLASAN v. MACARIO LARDIZABAL +

DECISION

G. R. No. 34345

[ G. R. No. 34345, December 05, 1931 ]

BONATO DINGLASAN, FOR HIMSELF AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED JUANA LARDIZABAL; ET AL. PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES VS. MACARIO LARDIZABAL, REPRESENTED BY HIS GUARDIAN LEONARDO MALABANAN . , DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

D E C I S I O N

JOHNSON, J.:

This action was  commenced in the  Court of First  Instance of Tuyabas  on March 8, 1929.  Its purpose was  to  secure  the partition of a. parcel of  land located  in the municipality of  Sariaya of said province, with  an area of  about  19 hectares, more particularly described in the complaint.

The plaintiffs alleged  that they  were  the owners of said land that the  defendant was only entitled  to  one-half thereof in usufruct; and that he was  and had been in possession  of said land since  the year  1924.  They prayed that a Judgment be  rendered, ordering the partition  of  said land, and directing the  defendant to render an account of  the fruits  thereof  from the year 1924.

The defendant made a  general denial, and  alleged that said land belonged to him  exclusively, or at  least, it was conjugal property .  He  also presented a  counterclaim in the sum of P500.00.  Because  of old  age a  guardian was appointed for the defendant.

Upon the issue thus presented, the  cause  was brought on for trial.   After hearing the  evidence the honorable Francisco Enage, judge, reached  the conclusion that the land in question was the exclusive property of the  deceased Candida  Camacho, and passed to the plaintiffs by  inheritance and rendered  a Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering  tits  partition of said land in accordance with the prayer of the complaint, and directing the defendant to render an account of the fruits thereof and to pay the costs,  The dispositive part of the decision reads as follows:
"Procede, pues, declarar que el terreno en cuestion es de la propiedad privativa de Candida Gamacho, y, en sa virtud, se decreta la particion de la finca decreta en la demanda de autos, y se ordena al demandado Macario Lardizabal o a bu tutor,  rinda cuenta detallada y justificada de sa administracion desde la fecha de la muerte de Candida Camacho hasta la fecha en que se efectue la particion, y entregue a Ios aque demandantos la parte que debe eorresponderles en dichos fratoe, con las costas al mismo demandano."
From that Judgment the defendant  appealed, and now makes several assignments of error.

After a careful examination of the record In relation with the assignments of error,  we are fully persuaded that the findings and conclusions of the lower court are correct, and that the judgment appealed from is in accordance  with the facts and the law.  The same is therefore hereby affirmed, with coats.  It is so Ordered.

Ten days after the promulgation of this decision final judgment will be entered, and five days thereafter the record will be demanded to the court below.

Street,  Villamor, Ostrand and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.
Avanceña,  C.  J.,  took no  part.

tags