G.R. No. 4293 - William A. Keay, representing the heirs of Charles A. Cross vs. Maria Gay

The petitioner consisted of the heirs of Charles A. Cross, represented by William A. Keay, who sought the inscription of the hacienda of Santa Cruz in their name.
The respondent, Dona Maria Gay, owner of the adjacent hacienda known as "Fortuna," opposed the petition because her estate bordered the hacienda of Santa Cruz on the south.
The case originated in the Court of Land Registration, where a judgment was rendered in favor of the petitioner before being appealed by Dona Maria Gay.

The central issue was the determination of the true boundary between the two haciendas, which was established to be the estero or river Panoolan.
Two channels or esteros were present in the disputed area, and the controversy centered on which one constituted the actual boundary between the properties.

A commissioner was appointed to hear evidence regarding the location and characteristics of the estero.

Testimonies from local witnesses, including that of F. Eugenio Lopez, were pivotal in identifying and describing the two channels.
The descriptions provided noted that one channel, located to the north within the Santa Cruz hacienda and adjacent to a "pono de cana espina," lacked water during the dry season.
The other channel, located to the south of the Santa Cruz estate, maintained a constant flow of water throughout all seasons.

The estero receiving a constant supply of water was the one known by the name "Panoolan."
The evidence pointed with great preponderance to the conclusion that the channel with perennial water flow was the true boundary marker.

The lower court, relying on the commissioner’s findings and the cumulative evidence, determined that the correct boundary between the haciendas was the channel that flowed continuously even in the dry season.
The Court of Land Registration affirmed this factual finding by ruling that the southern channel was the true "Panoolan."

Whether, based on the evidence presented, the channel marked by constant water flow should be recognized as the true estero Panoolan and thus the boundary between the haciendas.
Whether the appellants erred in contending that the court should have considered the designation provided in the plano (map) by the witness F. Eugenio Lopez rather than the petitioner's plan.

The appellant asserted that the Court of Land Registration made an error by adopting the petitioner’s plan instead of the plan indicating the channel marked in blue by F. Eugenio Lopez.
The key issue was a question of fact regarding the correct identification of the natural boundary, not a matter of legal interpretation.

Whether the preponderance of evidence, as recorded in the findings of the commissioner and subsequently affirmed by the Court of Land Registration, was adequate to establish the identity of the "Panoolan."
Whether the differences in the testimony regarding the water flow and naming of the channels were sufficient to support the lower court's decision.