Miller v. Director of Lands
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Applicants John M. Miller and Emilio Espinosa, Jr. applied for the registration of a parcel of land in Tigbao, Milagros, Masbate, containing 411 hectares. The Director of Lands and the Bureau of Public Highways filed written oppositions. Thirty-five individuals also appeared and expressed verbal oppositions. All persons, except the aforementioned oppositors, were declared in default. Procedural History: After the applicants presented evidence, 28 private oppositors filed written but unverified oppositions. The applicants finished presenting their evidence. Subsequently, the private oppositors presented their first witness. After the cross-examination of this witness, the applicants' counsel called the court's attention to the lack of verification in the private oppositors' opposition and moved to dismiss it. The private oppositors offered to verify their opposition. After the parties filed memoranda, the court issued an order dismissing the unverified opposition. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The private oppositors appealed from both orders. The Petition: The private oppositors appealed the orders of the Court of First Instance dismissing their unverified opposition and denying their motion for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the defect of lack of verification in the private oppositors' opposition was waived by the applicants' failure to object seasonably. Whether an unverified opposition is sufficient to confer legal standing in land registration proceedings.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the orders appealed from and remanded the case to the court a quo for further proceedings, without costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of waiver of the defect of lack of verification: The Court held that the applicants waived the defect of lack of verification in the private oppositors' opposition. The requirement for verification is found in Section 34 of Act 496, which mandates that an answer shall be signed and sworn to. However, an objection to a want of verification must be reasonably made and taken before trial. The applicants proceeded with the trial, presented evidence, and rested their case before raising the objection. By going to trial without objection, the applicants waived the right to urge that the opposition was not verified. The Court cited authorities stating that an objection to a want of verification must be reasonably made and that proceeding with the case as though the pleading were verified constitutes a waiver of the defect. On the sufficiency of an unverified opposition to confer standing: The Court affirmed that unverified oppositions have been held sufficient to confer standing in court on oppositors. The Court referenced Malagum vs. Pablo, where an unsworn opposition was dismissed, but the Court noted that the oppositors had appeared and had standing, making appeal the proper remedy. In Nicolas vs. Director of Lands and Camungao, the Court held that a written appearance with opposition, even if not sworn to, was a valid one and sufficient to give legal standing, constituting substantial compliance with the law requiring a formal answer. Therefore, the defect, if any, was deemed waived, and the private oppositors should have been allowed to verify their opposition.
Main Doctrine
The defect of lack of verification in an opposition in land registration proceedings is considered waived if the objecting party proceeds with the trial on the merits without making a timely and proper objection.