Laureano Arzadon, as administrator of the estate of Lorenza Angco, demands the surrender of several rural properties which he states are held by the following persons: By Clotilde Arzadon, those described in the complaint and indicated by the letters (a), (b), (c),  (d), (e), (f), (g), W, (i), (j),  (k), and (l); and by Maria  Luna, Basilia Corpus,  and Ponciano Tacmo  those likewise described in the complaint and marked with the letters (m), (n),  and (n).  He states that the  first-named parcels  were taken possession of  by Clotilde  Arzadon immediately after the death of  Lorenza  Angco,  and  that she still retains them against the will of the heirs of the latter;  and that the last three are also unlawfully held by Maria  Luna, Basilia Corpus, and Ponciano Tacmo who took them from the possession of Clotilde Arzadon.

The  evidence was presented  in the manner contained in the following recorded statement:

"At the trial of this case on the same day, the attorneys, to expedite  the matter, agreed to file their allegations in writing in order that the trial court might render judgment at the hearing thereof, and the parties thereupon submitted their written allegations in the  form of statements of their respective witnesses."

These  so-called  proofs are nothing more  than  certain papers signed by the counsel of the contending parties, and containing averments seemingly made by various witnesses. At the bottom of that of the plaintiff, which is signed by Attorney A. M. Jimenez, there appears the following:

"The undersigned attorney rejects all and each one of the immaterial proofs  that  the  defendant may offer  to  the court, denies under oath  the  presentation of documents lacking legal 'validity, the declarations that may be in conflict with those  made by the witnesses of the defendant, excepting therefrom in case of admission by the court, and, lastly, presents two documentary  proofs, Exhibits A and B of the complaint."

That of the defendant, signed by Attorney Lucas Paredes, contains the following:

"The defendants object to the documents which the plaintiff has  offered as evidence, for the reason that they are immaterial, and  in the event their objection is overruled they  take exception thereto.  As documentary  proof  they offer  Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 of the  defendants, and with this they rest their case."

On such proceedings the Court  of First Instance of Ilocos Norte rendered the following judgment:

"Inasmuch as  the whole of  the  allegations of the complaint have not been proven as required by law, the court dismisses the same with respect to  the  parcels of  land marked with the letters  (a), (b), (c), (d),  (e),  (k), (I), (m),  (n), and  (n),  with the costs against the  plaintiff. The latter may dispose as he wishes of the parcels indicated with  the letters  (f),  (g), (h),  (i), and (j), inasmuch as no one is opposed thereto, without  prejudice to attaching to the record hereof a copy of the plaintiff's petition  concerning the appointment of an administrator contained in the heading of civil case No.  569."

From  the above decision  the plaintiff  has  appealed, and assigned the following errors to the court below:

1. In having admitted the agreement presented by counsel in order to dispense with the trial of the case.  2. In having dismissed the complaint instead of holding it to be proven. 3. In overruling the motion  for a new trial.

Among the irregularities contained in the case herein, the most  remarkable  is that which is alleged as the first error committed in the judgment, the attorney who  alleges it being the same one who contributed thereto, and who  also suffered  therefrom by exposing  his complaint  to be  dismissed on account of lack  of legal proof.  This lawyer, together with the counsel for the adverse party, moved  that his proof be admitted in the form in which it was made, in order, as he now shows, to dispense with  the hearing of the case.  Such form of procedure can  not  constitute a trial. It is an open and manifest violation among others, of sections 132, 273, 274, and 381 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Act No. 190 of the Philippine Commission;  of  section 132, in so far  as it establishes the order of the trial which in this cause has been entirely done away with; of section 273, which  governs the manner  in  which  the  evidence shall be considered as regards  "all the facts and circumstances of the  case, the witnesses'  manner of  testifying,  their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing  the facts to which they are testifying, the nature  of the facts to which  they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their  interest  or want  of interest, and also  their personal credibility  so far  as the  same may legitimately appear upon the trial;" of section 274, in so far as it provides that the rules  of evidence shall be the same in all courts of the Islands,  and upon  every trial,  unless otherwise expressly provided  by statute; and of section 381, which prescribes that  the testimony of all  witnesses, except such as has been taken in writing in the form of depositions as otherwise provided  by law, shall be given on oath in open court orally.  It is  also a singular circumstance that  the appellant  should claim  to have  proven  his complaint by evidence which he now rejects and says was improperly  admitted.

This  Supreme Court,  before which the case  is submitted for a review of the proofs thus presented, can not even admit them; they do not constitute legal proof  of any  kind. It is erroneous to say that it was the duty of the court below to accept the agreements of the parties, not with respect to the facts, but as to the manner of offering their respective proofs.   The order of trials  is not a personal matter between the parties, one  that they may ignore or renounce as if it only concerned them privately.   The form of a trial is a matter of public order and interest.

A legal trial of the case must be held, and the judgment appealed from and all  the proceedings, with the exception of the written allegations, are hereby set aside;  a new trial is hereby ordered, to proceed  from the time of the filing of the answer  to the complaint, without any  special ruling as to costs in this instance.  So ordered.

Torres, Johnson, Carson, Moreland, and Elliott, JJ., concur.