Hacienda Esperanza in Northern Luzon, Philippines
Hacienda Esperanza
Documenting the history of Hacienda Esperanza in the Philippines.  Some initial research points:  
                                        (1)  Hacienda Esparanza was the largest privately owned landholding in Philippine history.  
                                        (2)  Hacienda Esperanza was not a Spanish land grant to Franscisco González.  
                                        (3)  Hacienda Esperanza encompassed parts of Pangasinan, Tarlac, and Nueva Ecija.  
                                        (4)  Hacienda Esperanza was purchased by Francisco González and a partner in the 1800s.  
[NOTE:  This is NOT the Hacienda Esperanza owned by Roberto Benedicto in La Carlota, Negros Occidental.]
[NOTE:  This is also NOT the Hacienda Esperanza in Iloilo.]
If you have Hacienda Esperanza information to confirm or deny or add to the above, please contact me at:
eloisa  -omit-this-spam-guard-  @ucla.edu

Central Luzon map
Map of Central Luzon, Philippines


... The land which is the subject of this action forms a part of a large tract situated in the provinces of Pangasinan, Tarlac and Nueva Ecija, known as the Hacienda Esperanza. This property was purchased from the Spanish government nearly eighty years ago, and after various transfers it was, in the last decade of the nineteenth century, divided between its owners, Francisco Gonzales [sic] and Marcelino de Santos, the latter receiving the northeastern portion of the hacienda, the greater part of which is located in the Province of Nueva Ecija.   ...

The southwest corner of the land included in the plan of 1906 is located at the point where the boundary line between Tarlac and Nueva Ecija crosses the river, or estero Susubaen. From that point the southern line of the land follows said river for a comparatively short distance to the old Hacienda Esperanza monument No. 6, very close to the irrigation dam built and owned by Francisco Gonzales [sic]. From that monument the line runs straight for 6,480 meters in an eastern direction to the old Hacienda Esperanza monument No. 5. The land adjoining that line to the south belongs to the descendants, or successors, of Francisco Gonzales [sic] and is conterminous with the Marcelino de Santos land now owned by Santos, Ongsiako, Lim & Co., the principal defendant in the present case, as the successor in interest of Marcelino de Santos.   ...

SOURCE:   Republic of the Philippines, SUPREME COURT, Manila.  
                    G.R. No. L-32776   December 4, 1930.

SEVERO DOMINGO, ET AL, plaintiffs-appellant,
      vs.
SANTOS, ONGSIAKO, LIM y CIA., and TIBURCIO VERZOLA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

("The main purpose of the action is to recover from the corporation mentioned a parcel of land containing an area of about 1,006 hectares, located in the municipality of Nampicuan, Province of Nueva Ecija".   See also related action to this case in G.R. No. L-22828-29 dated March 10, 1925)



        It is in the eastern part of the province where latifundism existed, where all the land of one municipality may be owned by only one family, as in the case of Sta. Maria, or where only three families owned all the cultivated land as in the case of Tayug, Rosales, San Quintin, and Umingan were the other towns where the huge estates farmed by hundreds of tenants existed.   These estates were chiefly owned by the Gonzaleses [sic] and Lichaucos.   In the 1930s the biggest estate was the 39,000-hectare Hacienda Esperanza owned by Don Francisco Gonzales [sic].   He had been its manager until he bought out its original Spanish owners who had obtained these as land grants during the Spanish era. ...

SOURCE:   Pangasinan, 1901-1986:   A Political, Socioeconomic and Cultural History.
                    by Rosario M. Cortes.   Quezon City, RP: New Day Publishers, 1990.   Page 71.

Rosario Mendoza Cortes, professor of history, emeritus, University of the Philippines  
                  author of:  Pangasinan, 1572-1800, Vol. I
                                    Pangasinan, 1801-1900: The Beginnings of Modernization
                                    Pangasinan, 1901-1986: A Political, Socioeconomic and Cultural History



MERCEDES CHINCHILLA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants,
      vs.
FRANCISCO GONZALEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

        This is an action brought by the plaintiff heirs of Eulogio Fernandez Latorre to recover damages for the alleged unlawful attachment and seizure of one hundred and one head of cattle by the defendant, Francisco Gonzalez, in the year 1896.   ...

... between the years 1892 and 1895 Chinchilla was a tenant of the defendant Gonzalez upon the hacienda "Esperanza;" that, a dispute having arisen between them, Gonzalez instituted "desahucio" (ejectment) proceedings against Chinchilla; that judgment having been rendered against Gonzalez in the Court of the First Instance, the case was appealed to the Audiencia de Manila where the judgment of the lower court was reversed on the 28th day of December, 1895; that thereafter Gonzalez procured the levy of an attachment upon 101 head of cattle which were found in the possession of Chinchilla's herdsmen on the hacienda "Esperanza;" that the cattle were levied upon as the property of Chinchilla, in the course of the legal proceedings pending between Gonzalez and Chinchilla; ...

The trial judge, with whom we agree, was of opinion that the document on which plaintiffs rely in support of their claim of a sale of seventy head of cattle by Chinchilla to his son-in-law, Latorre, does not evidence an executed sale of these cattle, carrying with it an actual transfer of title, but merely an executory agreement to sell these cattle, to be consummated by their delivery to the purchaser on demand. ...

... we are of opinion that the judgment of the lower court dismissing the complaint must be affirmed, ...

SOURCE:   Republic of the Philippines, SUPREME COURT, Manila.  
                    G.R. No. L-9749   November 13, 1915.



FELIX MELEGRITO, complainant,
      vs.
EUSEBIO C. BARBA, respondent.

        These charges of malpractice filed by Felix Melegrito on behalf of himself and 230 other persons against Attorney Eusebio C. Barba were referred in due course to the Solicitor- General for investigation and report.   ...

... It appears from an examination of the record that Francisco Gonzales [sic], the owner of the greater part of the "Hacienda Esperanza", transferred certain portions of it to his daughters Ramona, Guadalupe, Cristina, and Aurea Gonzales [sic], and that in 1914 his daughters filed separate applications in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija for the registration of their respective portions of the hacienda. The registration was opposed by Felix Melegrito and more than 230 other persons. In due course the opposition was overruled and the registration of the lands in the name of the applicants was ordered. The cases were appealed to this court, which remanded them to the lower court for a new trial and for amendment of the plans. The four cases were then consolidated with cadastral case No. 22 of the Province of Nueva Ecija, which had been instituted in the meantime. After additional evidence had been presented, the lower court again decided in favor of the applicants. From that decision four groups of opponents appealed to this court, which affirmed the decision of the lower court on March 30, 1929 (G.R. Nos. 28875-79). 1
...

SOURCE:   Republic of the Philippines, SUPREME COURT, Manila.  
                    En Banc   October 2, 1933.



        En Nueva Ecija, cuando se consiguio ese gran latifundio de la familia Gonzales [sic], no habia poblacion todavia alli.   Todo era terrenos publicos,que el Gobierno — segun me han informado — por un Real Decreto, consiguio para el progenitor de los Gonzalez un siglo y medio antes de ahora.   Entonces todo era bosque, no habia poblacion, no habia pueblo formado.   ...

Translation:

        In Nueva Ecija, when those large landholdings of the Gonzalez family were acquired, there had not as yet been a settlement there.   All was public lands, which the Government -- as I have been informed -- by a Royal Decree, acquired it for the progeny of the Gonzalezes a century and a half ago.   Therefore all was forest, there was no settlement, no city had been formed.   ...

SOURCE:   Delegate Ruperto Montinola of Iloilo, Philippine Constitutional Convention of 1934.
                    Proceedings of the Philippine Constitutional Convention,
                          Vol. VI, Laurel, pp, 533 to 559; 565 to 594.
                    Appended as "Excerpts from the Proceedings of the Philippine Constitutional
                          Convention As Compiled by Dr. Jose P. Laurel" in Republic of the Philippines,
                          SUPREME COURT, Manila. G.R. No. L-21064   Feb 18, 1970.



Bautista : St. John the Baptist

        Bautista formerly a barrio of Bayambang, was founded in 1900. Although it was a barrio it already had its own church before the revolution and got its name after Saint John the Baptist, its patron saint.

Of the founders we can mention names of the following: Ramon Reynaldo, Guillermo Agcaoile, Francisco Gonzales [sic], Dionisio Galvan, Honorio Acosta, Teodoro Carungay, Felipe Ramos, Marciano Guzman, Antonino Galsim and Marcelino Villanueva.   ...

SOURCE:   Pangasinan: Provincial Government Official Website - Bautista
                    http://www.gov.pangasinan.com/towns/bautista.htm

Note:   History states that the words to the Philippine National Anthem, with music composed by Juan Felipe, was originally written as a poem, entitled Filipinas, by Jose Palma at the railroad station in Bautista, Pangasinan in late August of 1899.   The poem was first published in La Independencia newspaper in September 3, 1899.


LINKS:
Dagupan City : "Bacnotan", "Nandaragupan"
Pangasinan Province Website
Pangasinan Towns & Cities
Pangasinan Profile
by Eloisa Gomez Borah.
Copyright © 2002-2005   Eloisa Gomez Borah.   All Rights Reserved.
Return to   Eloisa's home page

OTHER RESOURCES:
(1) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/"> The LAWPHIL Project, Arrellano Law Foundation

(2) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1916/oct1916/gr_l-8883_1916.html"> G.R. No. L-8883, October 20, 1916, Francisca Gonzalez and Fernando Fuster Fabra vs. Joaquin Gonzalez Mondragon
    to "collect on account of the dowry allowed Francisca Gonzales de Fuster by her father, the defendant Joaquin Gonzales Mondragon ..."

(3) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1906/jun1906/gr_l-2782_1906.html"> G.R. No. L-2782 June 4, 1906, FRANCISCO GONZALEZ, ET AL. vs. INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.
    "September 22, 1903, Francisco Gonzalez, on his own behalf, and as representative of his son, Matias and Joaquin Gonzalez, sold to the Casa Comision de Pilar Corrales, represented by Jose Basa, a country property, in consideration of the sum of 9,120 pesos, Philippine currency, upon the following conditions: (a) That the consideration for the sale was remain in possession of the purchasing firm as security for a promissory noted executed by the vendors which matured on the 22d day of December of the same year, but extendible to September 22, 1904. (b) That the sale to be rescinded if, on the 22nd day of September, 1904, before 12 o'clock noon, the vendors should return the consideration together with the interest accrued; the purchasing firm undertaking for itself or for its successors to reconvey the property in question. (c) That the purchasing firm was to acquire by this contract the right to sign, sell, or convey the same — that is, the contract — to any person, natural or juridical, who was to be subrogated to these rights or obligations. ..."

(4) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1949/oct1949/gr_l-2057_1949.html"> G.R. No. L-2057, October 29, 1949, Esperanza F. de Gonzalez (and eight children) vs. Ernesto Gonzalez
    "Wherefore, the defendant, Ernesto Gonzalez, is hereby ordered to pay to the plaintiff, Esperanza F. de Gonzalez, the amount of P2,845 as pension living with her for the period from July 1, 1945, to May 31, 1947, within fifteen days counted from that on which notice of this order is served on him, plus the sum of P350 monthly beginning June 1, 1947, for the same concept, until further orders from this Court. ..."

(5) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1950/oct1950/gr_l-1724_1950.html"> G.R. No. L-1724, October 12, 1950, Nieves Vda. de Gonzalez de Mondragon vs. Roman Santos
    "... It appears that Don Joaquin Gonzales Mondragon, who died on December 16, 1940 in Manila, left a large tract of land known as Hacienda Esperanza, situated in three municipalities of Pangasinan and covered by five certificates of titles. The deceased had executed a will and codicil in which he provided for the distribution and disposition of his estate among his widow, Doņa Nieves Balmori Vda. de Gonzales Mondragon, the plaintiff herein, and various children. To his widow, the testator devised 33/34 of the hacienda, among other legacies. In 1941, the widow and her children made a partition of the inheritance, allotting to each heir separate and specific portions but leaving pro-indiviso the residential lots and roads in the barrios situated within the estate. They employed a surveyor, and a sub-division plan, introduced in evidence as Exhibit 10, was drawn, on which the area of the widow's approximately one-third share was stated to be 1,023 hectares. Subsequent to the partition, negotiations were started, or resumed, for the purchase by Don Roman Santos, the defendant, of the plaintiff's share and those of her children who were willing to sell. Offers and counter-offers were made until, finally, the parties closed the deal and executed the deed Exhibit A or 1 on August 5, 1941. The pertinent provisions of the deed read: Nosotros, Nieves Balmori Vda. de Gonzales Mondragon, Joaquin P. Gonzalez, casado con Filomena Pacheco, Esperanza Gonzalez, casada con Marcel Peyronnet. Roberto V. Gonzalez, casado con Katherine C. McCraken, Enrique F. Gonzalez, casado con Luisa Tapales, Asuncion H. Gonzalez, casado con Cristina Soriano, Antonio F. Gonzalez, casado con Mercedes Ugarte, y Remedios Gonzalez, casada con Thomas O'Brien, todos los cuales son mayores de edad, residentes en la ciudad de Manila y ciudadanos filipinos, con excepcion de Esperanza y Remedios Gonzalez, que por razon de matrimonio son, respectivamente, de ciudadania francesa y americana, mas adelante designados como los Vendedores, en consideracion de la suma total de P943,500 de la cual P460,000 corresponden a Nieves B. Vda. de Gonzalez Mondragon, P61,000 a cada uno de los Vendedores Vicente, Antonio y Remedios Gonzalez, P60,000 a Joaquin Gonzalez, Enrique Asuncion Gonzalez, cuyo precio sera pagadero en los terminos que mas adelante se especifican, hacemos constar por la presente que vendemos, cedemos y traspasamos, en absoluto y a perpetuidad, a Roman Santos, casado con Juliana Andres, filipino y residente en el municipio de Navotas, provincia de Rizal, mas adelante designado como el Comprador, todo su derecho, interes y participacion en la Hacienda Esperanza, ubicada en los municipios de Umingan, San Quintin y Santa Maria, de la provincia de Pangasinan, con todos sus edificios, mejoras, y pertenencias, incluyendo toda la cosecha no levantada y semillas existentes en la Hacienda, todo el ajuar de la Casa-Hacienda de la propiedad de la Vendedora Nieves B. Vda. de Gonzalez Mondragon, el truck Ford, y la planta electrica, todo libre de carga y gravamen, excepto como aqui se especifica mas adelante. Sometime after the sale, a new survey was made and the new plan gave the area of the plaintiff's approximately one-third share of the hacienda as 1,091.24 instead ..."

(6) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1962/jan1962/gr_l-17564_1962.html"> G.R. No. L-17564, January 31, 1962, Arturo de Santos, et al vs. Petronila Acosta, et al
    " ... Hacienda Esperanza No. 5, with a total area of approximately 1,800 hectares, situated in the municipalities of Cuyapo, Guimba and Nampicuan, Nueva Ecija, was originally owned by and registered in the names of the late couple Felipe de Santos and Concepcion Vda. de Santos. Petitioners here and in the court below are the surviving children of the deceased spouses. The hacienda is occupied by about 380 tenants and managed by Alberto de Santos, one of the petitioners. Under the latters' management, unlike that of his late father, tenancy disputes became prevalent between the parties. ... Under this general condition, petitioners, on or about May, 1955, organized a corporation known as De Santos Agricultural Development, Incorporated, which was to manage the hacienda in question. In December, 1955, the Board of Directors authorized the corporate president, Alberto de Santos, to undertake the mechanization of a parcel of land situated in Barrio Sta. Clara, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, which parcel is tenanted by the respondents herein, numbering 55 in all. ... Attached to the petition is the certification, dated February 9, 1955, of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, stating, among other things, that ,b>Hacienda Esperanza No. 5, of which the landholdings of the respondents, form part, was found suitable for mechanization, ... Here, the records disclose that Hacienda Esperanza No. 5 is bisected by a provincial road running from south to north; on the west side is barrio Sta. Clara and on the eastern portion are the barrios of Lenec, San Felipe, Quisit, Baloy and Balbino."

(7) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1965/jul1965/gr_l-18001_1965.html"> G.R. No. L-18001, July 30, 1965, Republic of the Philippines vs. Amparo Nable, Jose Lichauco, et al
    "... we consider it improper to consider as basis the value of the three haciendas mentioned in the decision, namely, the Hacienda de Leon, the Hacienda Ongsiako and the Hacienda Esperanza (Chito Gonzales) not only because their nature is not similar to the Hacienda El Porvenir but their location is quite far to come within the vicinity of the property to be expropriated. Thus, it appears that the Hacienda de Leon is about 70 kilometers away from the hacienda in question, while the Hacienda Ongsiako is even worst for it is nearly 100 kilometers distant. The Hacienda Esperanza is situated a little nearer, or 19 kilometers distant from Hacienda El Porvenir but its area is so small that its price can hardly be taken as basis for determining the value of a big hacienda. ..."

(8) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1980/jan1980/gr_44875_1980.html"> G.R. No. L-44875-76, 45160, 46211-12, January 22, 1980, Avelino Cabatan and Antonio Aspiras vs. Court of Appeals, Carmen G. Vda. de Villareal and Luis Villareal
    "B. In GR. No. L-45160, " (O)n April 30, 1971, plaintiff-appellee Carmen G. de Villareal filed in the lower court a petition docketed therein as CAR Case No. 1312-TP '71, alleging, inter alia, that defendant Pablo Ulalan is an agricultural lessee of a certain portion of Hacienda Esperanza, owned by her, situated in Barrio Samon, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan, with an area and agreed rate of lease rental indicated as follows: ..."
    "A consolidated resume of the material and relevant facts culled from the findings of the CAR, the stipulations of facts submitted by the parties and the foregoing findings of the Court of Appeals, follow. Carmen G. Vda. de Villareal was the owner of a vast tract of land known as Hacienda Esperanza situated at Barrio Saman, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan. The hacienda is divided into several farm lots which are being tilled by several tenants as early as 1920's and long before the effectivity of the first rice-share Tenancy Act (Act. No. 4054) enacted in 1933. ..."

(9) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1962/may1962/gr_l-14180_1962.html"> G.R. No. L-14180 May 31, 1962 LUDOVICO ESTRADA, ET AL. vs. AMADO S. SANTIAGO, ETC., ET AL.
    "... a parcel of agricultural land situated in the barrios of Pindangan and San Pedro Apartado Alcala, Pangasinan, bounded on the NE. by the property of the heirs of Asterio Favis; on the SE. by the provincial boundary line of Pangasinan and Tarlac; on the NW. ..."

(10) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/sep1990/gr_74769_1990.html"> G.R. No. 74769 September 28, 1990 BEATRIZ F. GONZALES vs. ZOILO AGUINALDO, ET AL.
    "... Doņa Ramona is survived by her four (4) children who are her only heirs, namely, Asterio Favis, Beatriz F. Gonzales, Teresa F. Olbes, and Cecilia Favis-Gomez. ..."

(11) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1922/mar1922/gr_l-18664_1922.html"> G.R. No. 18664 March 31, 1922, MARIA GONZALEZ vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
    "... On the 26th of January, 1909, the Director of Lands agreed to sell to Francisco Gonzalez, the father of the petitioner, lot No. 271, now in question, for the price of eighty-four pesos (P84), payable in nineteen yearly installments. Payments on these installments were made until the amount of the price was fully paid. The aforesaid lot No. 271 adjoins lot No. 270, for the purchase of which Pablo Manguerra has applied. It was found by Pablo Manguerra that the camarin (shed) which ought to be within lot No. 270 covered by his application, was within lot No. 271, that is to say, that the boundaries of this lot No. 271 should be so fixed as not to include the said camarin, which, the petitioner admits, does not belong to her, nor to her predecessor in interest, Francisco Gonzalez. In a letter dated August 20, 1919, the Director of Lands advised Francisco Gonzalez of this error, committed in the survey of these two lots, and since then negotiations have been held with a view to an amicable settlement, to which the petitioner seems to be opposed, alleging that the camarin belongs to the brother of her father, but that the latter is the owner of the land on which it is situated. There exists, therefore, a controversy as to whether the camarin in question should, or should not, be included in lot No. 271, that is, as to what the true limits of this lot should be. This being the case, the object which is the subject-matter of this contract of sale is not definite, and the duty of the respondent to issue the title in question not yet clear. ..."

(12) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1936/sep1936/gr_42832_1936.html"> G.R. No. 42832 September 30, 1936, LOURDES CATALA vs. NEMESIO MONTEVERDE, SANTIAGO MATUTE, as guardian of Candelaria Monterverde, the spouses MILAGROS MONTEVERDE and LEON A. GARCIA, and the spouses VICENTA MONTERVERDE and VICENTE A. TIONGKO
    "... Mr. Francisco J. Gonzalez married to Rufina Narciso residing at 375 Peņafrancia Street, of the District of Paco, City of Manila ..."

(13) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1903/apr1903/gr_1126_1903.html"> G.R. No. 1126 April 28, 1903, THE UNITED STATES vs. HERMOGENES MUYOT
    "... The testimony of Don Geronimo Jose and of Don Francisco Gonzalez, to the effect that they had made investigations and found that the defendant was a defaulter ..."

(14) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1922/jun1922/gr_l-17107_1922.html"> G.R. No. L-17107 June 9, 1922, MATIAS GONZALEZ vs. IRA L. DAVIS, ET AL
    "Matias Gonzalez applied for the registration of the land described in the plan Exhibit C on page 6 of this record, alleging that he had acquired it by inheritance from his father, the same having been allotted to him in the partition made by his said ascendant. The opponent to the application are the Director of Lands, Aurea Gonzalez, de Ilagan Manuel Ernesto Gonzalez y Morales, Ramona Gonzalez, Victorina Gonzalez, Guadalupe Gonzalez, Cristina Gonzalez, and Ira L. Davis.

It has been proven that the land the registration of which is applied for is no longer public land and that it is a part of the hacienda known as "Esperanza" owned by the father of the applicant, Francisco Gonzalez y Reinado, and duly registered in his name. For this reason the Director of Lands did not appeal from the decision dismissing his opposition.

The question at issue is whether or not the applicant is entitled to ad decree for all the land covered by the application.

It appears from the record that the "Esperanza" estate was divided into several portions, which, when surveyed afterwards, in accordance with modern methods, showed that their proportion was different from that intended in the partition, which error was probably due to the large extent of the estate.

The applicant alleges that the portion allotted to him in the partition, which should be the same as that given to his brother Joaquin, contained, according to his belief, an area of 2,816 hectares and 77 areas, while the portion of his brother, after being surveyed accurately, was 3,317 hectares, 44 areas, and 86 centiares. For this reason applicant caused his portion of the land to be surveyed and later applied for its registration in proceedings numbered 5464.

The records do not show the exact area resulting from the survey of the portion belonging to the applicant. The fact is that after surveying the lands alloted to the step-brothers of the applicant, some of whom are the herein opponents, it was found that there were 800 hectares in excess of the total area of the estate, said excess being contiguous to the portion allotted to the herein applicant. The applicant had this excess surveyed and it was found to contain 800 hectares, 45 ares, and 37 centiares, according to the plan Exhibit C aforesaid. This is the land that is now the subject matter of these proceedings. The plan, however, was later amended so as to conform with record No. 5550 and the land was subdivided into lot A (containing 388 hectares, 12 areas, and 51 centiares) and lot B (with an area of 386 hectares, 35 areas, and 32 centiares), or a total of 774 hectares, 47 ares, and 82 centiares. This is, therefore, the exact area of the land now in question.

At the trial of this cause the applicant acceded to the claim of Aurea Gonzalez to 50 hectares; of Manuel Ernesto Gonzalez to 30 hectares; of Ramona Gonzalez to 2 hectares; of Victorina Gonzalez to 72 hectares; of Guadalupe Gonzalez to 53 hectares, and of Cristina Gonzalez to 50 hectares, making a total of 265 hectares.

In this instance, therefore, the question is limited to the remainder of the land; that is, to the 518 hectares, 47 areas, and 84 centiares.

The opponent Ira L. Davis claims to be the owner of 388 hectares, 12 areas, and 51 centiares of this land which is lot A in the amended plan Exhibit C, alleging that said land had been sold to him by the applicant, as evidenced by Exhibit "Davis-1." Applicant denies this allegation. The trial court gave judgment in favor of the opponent and the applicant now comes on appeal assigning several errors. The first error is assigned to the act of the court below in overruling his demurrer to the opposition of Ira L. Davis and is based on the allegation that Davis' claim does not describe fully the portion of land claimed, nor does it state the right under which he claims it. According to the language employed in the demurrer the opponent claims a right of coownership to the whole land included in the application. At the time of passing upon the demurrer, it could not have been forseen that the said opponent was entitled to a smaller portion of land, and the fact that after the trial this was found to be the case does not constitute an essential defect of the pleading. After an examination of said pleading, we find it sufficient, as it was not necessary to describe therein any specific portion, the whole land involved in the application being the subject of the opposition, nor to specify the right or interest under which the opponent claimed, since it is alleged in the said pleading that the opponent's predecessor in interest was a joint owner of the property with the applicant. Wherefore, applicant's verbal objection was properly overruled.

The applicant's second and third assignments of error are concerned with the act of the trial court in considering favorably the document Exhibit "Davis-1," and are based on the allegation that the said document is defective in that it does not contain the description of the land to which it refers, nor does it show a sufficient consideration. It is a fact, however, that the said document is defective in that it does not contain the description of the land to which it refers, nor does it show a sufficient consideration. It is a fact, however, that the said document contains a description of the land claimed by the opponent and that it is situated within the property sought to be registered. The description is sufficient to identify the land without the necessity of a new contract between the parties, wherefore it is no obstacle to the existence of the contract. (Article 1273, Civil Code.)

Regarding the alleged defect of the contract, which is made to consist in the supposed lack of sufficient consideration, we are of the opinion that the uncontradicted explanations of the opponent Davis, about the consideration of the aforesaid contract of sale, are enough to make us conclude that it is not vitiated by the alleged defect.

As regards the fourth assignment of error, in which it is contended that Davis succeeded in taking possession of the document Exhibit "Davis-1" without the consent of the applicant, it is sufficient to say that the said instrument of sale was recorded in the registry of deeds and it has been proven that the opponent took possession of the land described in the document.

The fifth assignment of error being consequence of the previous assignments need not be discussed.

We find the judgment appealed from is in accordance with the facts and the law, wherefore it is affirmed with costs against the appellant. So ordered."

(15) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1948/apr1948/gr_l-554_1948.html"> G.R. No. L-554 April 9, 1948, HAW PIA vs. THE CHINA BANKING CORPORATION
    "... But more than this, the law rightly extends still a wider protection over the innocent creditor. As held by this Court, through Chief Justice Arellano, in Panganiban vs. Cuevas, 7 Phil., 477, 485: The payment made by Panganiban to the revolutionary government of the 1,300 pesos which he should have paid to Francisco Gonzalez in order to redeem the property, could not have extinguished the obligation incurred by him in favor of the latter. The Supreme Court of Spain, in a judgment rendered on the 28th of February, 1896, said: "The payment of the debt in order to extinguish the obligation must be made to the person or persons in whose favor in was incurred or to his or their duly authorized agent. It follows, therefore, that the payment made to a third person, even through error and in good faith, shall not release the debtor of the obligation to pay and will not deprive the creditor of his right to demand payment. It is becomes impossible to recover what was unduly paid, any loss resulting therefrom shall be borne by the deceived debtor, who is the only one responsible for his own acts unless there is a stipulation to the contrary or unless the creditor himself is responsible for the wrongful payment." ... (5) Any erroneous, even if bona fide, belief of the debtor that the Japanese occupant had the power to do what he did in respect to the afore-mentioned prewar creditor-debtor relations, did not validate an otherwise invalid payment, just as the erroneous, even if bona fide, belief of Panganiban (in Panganiban vs. Cuevas, supra) that the Revolutionary Government had the power to collect or receive from him the 1,300 pesos that he paid it instead of D. Francisco Gonzalez, did not extinguish hi obligations contracted in favor of the latter, because, said Chief Justice Arellano: ". . . como se ha declarado en sentencia de casacion de 28 de Febrero de 1896, 'para que el pago de lo debido extinga las obligaciones, debe hacerse a las personas en cuyo favor estuvieren constituidas o a cualquiera otra autorizada para recibirlo; siguiendose de ello que la entrega de lo adeudado hecho a un tercero siquiera se haga por mero error y de buena fe, no libera al deudor de su obligacion de pagar ni perjudica al acreedor en su derechoa cobrar, y que si por la imposiblidad de recuperar lo indebidamente pagado, resultasen perjuicios irreparables, recaen estos sobre el deudor engaņado, como unico responsable de sus propios actos, a no mediar sobre este punto pacto en contratrio, o culpabilidad del acredor que origine responsabilities al mismo imputables.'" (7 J.F. 501-502; emphasis supplied.) The reason for the law would be the same here, whether the error relates to the powers of the Taiwan Bank as supposed liquidator, or to the general powers of the Japanese occupant; hence, its provisions should be the same in the instant case; . ..."

(16) < href="http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1958/mar1958/gr_l-10676_1958.html"> G.R. No. L-10676 March 29, 1958, FELICIANO ABAD, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES (THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS), respondent.
    "On April 23, 1924, the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija ordered the subdivision of lot No. 2959 of the Cuyapo cadastre into Lots Nos. 2959-A and 2959 the first having been declared public land and the second having been adjudicated to the owners of the Hacienda Esperanza. This order was affirmed on appeal by this Court on March 10, 1925, the decision declaring that the demarcation line between the portion belonging to the Hacienda Esperanza and that belonging to the public domain is a straight line drawn from point M-3 to point M-20 of the plan marked Exhibit H (Government of the Philippines vs. Abad, 47 Phil. 573).

Shortly after the decision became final, Lot. No. 2959 was surveyed by cadastral surveyors Felix Mateo and Juan Justiniano, by authority of the Director of Lands, for the purpose of subdividing it in accordance with the terms of the decision, after which the subdivision plan prepared on the basis of their survey was submitted to the Director of Lands for his approval.

On May 7, 1926, the Director of Lands approved the subdivision plan and sent copies thereof to the Chief of the General Land Registration Office who submitted them to the court of first instance having jurisdiction over the Cuyapo cadastre with the request that final decree, to registration be issued for Lots Nos. 2959-A and 2959-B as recommended in the subdivision plan. On November 24, 1930, the court approved the subdivision plan as requested and ordered the issuance of the final decree of registration for Lot No. 2959-A in favor of the Government and for Lot No. 2959-B in favor of the owners of Hacienda Esperanza. Accordingly, the Chief of the General Land Registration Office issued Decree of Registration No. 2253 on December 15, 1930 in favor of said owners and on the basis of such decree Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4914 was issued: in their favor on January 14, 1931. Thereafter, the Government sold Lot No. 2959-A to Manuel Alzate and Emilia de Alzate in whose favor Original Certificates of Title: Nos. 98 and 152 were issued.

On November 20, 1951, or about twenty-one years after Decree No. 2253 was issued on December 15, 1930 the Director of Lands filed a petition in the same cadastral proceedings praying that a relocation be authorized of monument M-20 of Lot No. 2959 which was declared to be the demarcation line between the portion belonging to the Hacienda Esperanza and that belonging to the public domain as declared in the decision of this Court rendered on March 10, 1925. The court, then I presided over by Judge Jose Bonto, laboring under the impression that the aforesaid decision of this Court has not yet been executed, although more than twenty-five years had elapsed since it was rendered, issued an order authorizing the relocation prayed for. This was undertaken by Zacarias Gatchalian, district land officer of Nueva Ecija, who submitted to the Director of Lands his report and the subdivision plan made by him as a result of the relocation. Said report and plan were later submitted to the court for approval. This petition was opposed by the owners of Hacienda Esperanza.

After the case had been heard on the merits, the court, Judge M. Mejia presiding, denied the petition in an order issued on January 29, 1953. The Director of Lands appealed from this order, and on April 18, 1956, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision setting aside the order and reserving to said Director the right to file a petition under Section 112 of Act No. 496 for the correction of the Decree of Registration No. 2253 and the Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4914 issued in favor of the owners of Hacienda Esperanza in line with the decision rendered by this Court on March 10, 1925. This case is now on appeal by certiorari before this Court pursuant to Section 1, Rule 46, of the Rules of Court.

The petition which gave rise to this appeal is the one filed by the Director of Lands on November 20, 1951 before the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija which has jurisdiction of the Cuyapo cadastre praying that a relocation of monument M-20 of Lot No. 2959 be authorized on the ground that a mistake was made in the original survey which resulted in the improper transfer of some 2,000 hectares of public land to the owners of Hacienda Esperanza. And the Court of Appeals ruled that this relocation and correction can be undertaken under Section 112 of the Land Registration Law. Is this ruling correct?

Counsel for petitioner contends' that this cannot be done because (1) said section 112 only authorizes the correction, modification or amendment of a certificate of a title or of a memorandum thereof, and not of a decree of registration; and (2) the only grounds under which the correction, amendment or modification of said certificate of title or memorandum may be made are those mentioned in said section 112, which do not include the mistake allegedly committed in the relocation of monument M-20 which resulted in the transfer to petitioner of a substantial portion of public land.

Section 412 above referred to provides:

    SEC. 112. No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title of memorandum hereon and the attestation of the same by it, clerk or any register of deeds, except by order of the court. Any registered owner or other person in interest may at any, time apply by petition to the court, upon the ground that registered interests of any description, whether vested, contingent, expectant, or inchoate, have terminated and ceased; or that new interests have arisen or been created which do not appear upon the certificate; or that any error, omission, or mistake was made in entering a certificate or any memorandum thereon, or any duplicate certificate; or that the name of any person on the certificate has been changed; or that the registered owner has been married; or if registered as married, that the marriage has been terminated; or that a corporation which owned registered land and has been dissolved has not conveyed the same within three years after its dissolution; or upon any other reasonable ground; and the court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition after notice to all parties in interest, and may order the entry of a new certificate, or grant any relief upon such terms and conditions, requiring security if necessary, as it may deem proper; Provided, however, That this section shall not be construed to give the court authority to open the original decree of registration, and that nothing shall be done or ordered by the court which shall impair the title or other interest of a purchaser holding a certificate for value and in good faith, or his heirs or assigns, without his or their written consent.

    Any petition filed under this section and all petitions and motions filed under the provisions of this Act after original registration shall be filed and entitled in the original case in which the decree of registration was entered.

We agree with counsel for petitioners that the alteration or amendment authorized in Section 112 of the Land Registration Act can only refer to a certificate of title or to a memorandum thereof, and not to a decree of registration, for otherwise a contrary interpretation would have a derogatory effect upon Section 38 of the same law which provides that "Every decree of registration shall bind the land, and quiet title thereto, subject only to the exceptions stated in the following section" (referring to legal encumbrances), that "it shall be conclusive upon and against all persons including the Insular Government and all the branches thereof," and-that after the decree becomes final, it cannot be reopened except only by reason of fraud when the interested party may file a petition for review within one year after the entry of the decree provided no innocent purchaser for value has acquired an interest. It is also provided in said Section 38 that "Upon the expiration of said term of one year, every decree or certificate of title issued in accordance with this section shall be incontrovertible." (Emphasis supplied.)

Indeed, it is held that "when once a decree of registration is made under the Torrens system and the time has passed within which that decree may be questioned, the title is perfect and cannot later be questioned" (Reyes and Nadres vs. Borbon and Director of Lands, 50 Phil., 791; Emphasis supplied). And as it was aptly said, "No rule is better settled in this jurisdiction than one which prohibits the changing, altering or modification of a decree in a land registration proceeding under the Torrens system after the lapse of one year" (Director of Lands vs. Gutierrez David," 50 Phil., 797; Emphasis supplied).

The mistake which is now advanced as basis for the relocation is not a mistake committed in entering the certificate of title issued in favor, of the owners of the Hacienda Esperanza which may be the subject of correction under Section 112. It is merely ?a mistake committed in the survey which served as basis of the decree of registration pursuant to which the title was issued for, unquestionably, the alleged mistake, if any, was committed by the former surveyors of the Bureau of Lands who undertook the survey of Lot No., 2959 with a view to its subdivision in line with the decision of this Court rendered on March 10, 1925. And this is the mistake which said Bureau now attempts to correct about twenty one, years, after said decree had become final, which as we have stated can no longer be questioned, the same being under the law incontrovertible (Section 38, Land registration Act).

This case is on all fours with that of Lichauco, et al., vs. The Director of Lands, et al., 70 Phil., 69. In that case, the Hacienda El Porvenir was the subject of registration proceedings commenced on January 20, 1903. The decision of the court adjudicating registration in the name of the applicants was confirmed by this Court on May 5, 1906, and one year from this date, the judgment became final. After the decision became final, the corresponding decree and title were issued in favor of the applicants. On October 18, 1912, the Director of Lands filed a petition praying that a new survey of the land be made and a new certificate of title issued in conformity thereto. The new survey was made by surveyor Zoilo Garcia who prepared plan Psu-17590 and the corresponding technical description. These plan and description were submitted to the General Land Registration Office for approval.

After this plan was amended, the same was submitted to the court for approval and it was approved on March 1, 1923, the court setting aside its previous decree and cancelling all the certificates of title issued pursuant thereto. Then new titles were issued in accordance with the new decree. On February 15, 1932, Cayetano Corpuz, et al., filed a motion praying that all subsequent proceedings be declared null and void for being contrary to law. The court acceded to this motion and its resolution was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, on August 7, 1934, the heirs of the original applicants again filed a motion in the same registration proceedings praying for the approval of the same plan prepared by Zoilo Garcia, as amended, and for the issuance of a new decree in connection therewith, which was opposed by the Director of Lands for, if the amendment were allowed, it is claimed, there would be a difference of more than 291 hectares that would accrue to the benefit of petitioners. In holding that such amendment can no longer be made under Section 112 of the Land Registration Act, this Court, made the following pronouncement:

    Section 112 recognizes and permits the correction of an error of closure, "provided such correction does not include lands not included in the original petition." (Roxas vs. Enriquez, 29 Phil., 63.) Otherwise, the doctrine of the conclusiveness and legal indefeasibility of a Torrens title would be a meaningless verbiage. It is admitted by the appellees in their brief that a variance in the total area exists between the Garcia plan and the Rocafull plan. (Brief for Appellees, Attys. for the Heirs of Lichauco, p. 23; pp. 167-169, 175-176, 178-180, and p. 881, t.s.n.) In the Rocafull survey the area given is 2,705 hectares, 68 ares and 49 centares, whereas in the Garcia survey Plan Psu-17590 (Exhibit E-1) the area given is 2,997 hectares, 48 ares and 56 centares, or a difference of 291 hectares, 80 ares, and 70 centares in favor of the appellees (Lichauco vs. Heirs of Cayetano Corpuz, G.R. No. 39512). The court below in its decision admits the existence of a discrepancy. (Decision, pp. 261-262, Bill of Execeptions.)

    We are of the opinion that, even if there really existed an error of closure as claimed, the court below was without authority to entertain, much less grant, the petition of August 7, 1934. The approval of Plan Psu-17590 as amended would authorize not only the inclusion of land of the public domain which some seventy free patent applicants have been authorized to occupy but also a reopening of a decree of registration long closed and settled. It is well settled that after the issuance of the decree of registration of a land upon which a judgment has become final, no error can be corrected any longer regarding the area of the land. (Manlapas and Tolentino vs. Llorente, 48 Phil., 298.) It seems clear, therefore, that what the lower court has attempted, and in fact accomplished, was not correction of an error of closure, but a retrial of the case and the subsequent approval of an entirely new decree of registration. This is not permissible.

The plea is made that, if the relocation is not allowed and the error should continue, a great injustice would be caused to the Government because it would stand to lose around 2,000 hectares which would unjustly accrue to the benefit of the owners of the Hacienda Esperanza. If this claim is substantiated, it would indeed turn the scale of equity in favor of the public domain, but there is, serious doubt as to its validity considering that the new survey is merely based upon the report of Zacarias Gatchalian, as opposed to the report of two public land surveyors Felix Mateo and Juan Justiniano. The trial court found that Gatchalian's report was devoid of Probative value because it was prepared in an arbitrary manner and based merely on hearsay evidence. Thus, the lower court on this matter made the following pronouncement:

    After a thorough examination of Gatchalian's report, and the plans attached thereto, the Court feels that the same is, not of much probative value to sustain the contention of the Director of Lands. The plans attached thereto were prepared in a more or less arbitrary manner, relying mostly on information furnished by alleged residents of the locality and on bearings and distances of old Spanish title of the Hacienda Esperanza which are admittedly erroneous (Domingo vs. Santos, Ongsiaco, Lim y Cia., 53 Phil., 361). Also, although the order of the court for the relocation was directed, to the Director of Lands, Gatchalian's report was not submitted by the latter to this court. Furthermore, by Gatchalian's own testimony, the plans Exhibit C-2 and C-3 are inaccurate when he stated that point "47" is a clerical error and should be "42". Lastly, Gatchalian's admission that in preparing the relocation plan, he did not take into consideration and plan marked Exhibit H, used in the original registration of the land, and that he did not make any attempt to reconstruct the records of the Cuyapo Cadastre where the technical description of lot No. 2959 could be found, and that he was not aware of the fact that title had already been issued for Lots Nos. 2959-A and 2959-B, which he could have used in the relocation survey conducted by him.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed. The order of the trial court issued on January 29, 1953 is hereby revived and given force and effect. No pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur."