G.R. No. 172418 -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the case is hereby ordered remanded to the court of origin for further trial and for whatever proceedings which may be necessary and appropriate for the sole and exclusive purpose of determining with definiteness the identity of the property claimed by appellees vis-à-vis the property claimed by the appellants so that the proper amendment or supplement to the decision may be arrived at, identifying therein the property which should be vacated by defendants-appellants and delivered to plaintiffs-appellees. [16] The Court of Appeals stated that respondents failed to prove the identity of the property they seek to recover, as their Complaint and other documents submitted in evidence did not contain a definitive description of the property. The Court of Appeals cited Laluan v. Malpaya , [17] which held that the prudent course was for the trial court to conduct an investigation to enable it to identify positively the land in litigation. [18] Hence, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings for the sole and exclusive purpose of determining the identity of the property claimed by respondents in relation to the property claimed by petitioners, so that the proper supplement to the decision would be arrived at, identifying therein the property which should be vacated by petitioners and delivered to respondents. On July 15, 1996, the trial court issued an Order [19] for the ocular and relocation survey of the subject properties, and subpoenas were issued to Engineer Constancio Silva of CENRO II of Dumaguete City and others, directing them to appear and go with the trial court Judge and his staff for the ocular and relocation survey in the morning and afternoon of September 18, 1996. All parties were duly served with copies of the said order, especially the counsel for herein petitioners, Atty. Filemon M. Repollo, who received the notice on July 29, 1996. [20] However, petitioners and their counsel did not appear despite notices to them, but the ocular inspection proceeded. On May 4, 2004, the trial court rendered a Supplemental Decision, [21] the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, supplemental judgment is hereby rendered ordering the Defendants in this case to deliver and vacate the premises of the Fishpond described in Exhibit C-4 of plaintiffs (p. 399 of Expediente), specifically with a perimeter from points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in a red line thereof. [22] The trial court stated that the fishpond application of Nemesio Saycon had an area of 57,878 square meters. However, the trial court found that 43,465 square meters of the said area is part of the fishpond application of Alejandro Tulabing. [23] Hence, segregating and deducting the area of 43,465 square meters from the fishpond application of Nemesio Saycon with an area of 57,878 square meters, the balance is 14,413 square meters, which is not a contested area and belongs to Nemesio Saycon. [24] The trial court held: Defenda