G.R. No. 172813 - Reyes-Tabujara vs. Court of Appeals

The case centers on the adjudication and distribution of several parcels of land as identified in different plans and exhibits.
There is a contention over the equivalency and proper allocation of lots described in the following documents:

A specific controversy arises over Lot 6-A (equivalent to Lot 18-a in the alternative exhibit) and the conditional requirements for its adjudication.

Bernia Lots C, 4, and 5 in Exhibit “B-Kerr” are described as being equivalent to Lots 8, 9, 11, 15, 13, 14, 15, and 16 in Exhibit “29-Bernia”.
Lot B of the Exhibit “B-Kerr” plan (identified in plan psu-11330, SWO-7476) is also part of the adjudication.
Lot 6-A of Exhibit “B-Kerr” (equivalent to Lot 18-a of Exhibit “29-Bernia”) is subject to a special ruling involving conditional adjudication.

The original judgment was rendered by the Court of First Instance of Pampanga on December 26, 1930.
The case was appealed, and subsequent proceedings culminated in a decision filed on April 11, 1934, by Acting Clerk of Court J. Stevens.
The appellate decision explicitly addresses and differentiates in its ruling the various lots based on the available evidence and documentation.

The case mentions expenses incurred in the publication of notices and other incidental expenses from a related proceeding (Case No. 584, G.L.R.O. Record No. 23476).
The modification regarding Lot 6-A required that the oppositor, Ignacio Dimson and his wife, pay a proportionate share of these expenses as delineated under Act No. 3621 amending Article 37 of Act No. 496.
The decision reserves the right of the spouses Dimson to apply for a separate proceeding for the registration in their own name of a portion of Lot A, as indicated in the relevant exhibit.

Whether the lower court’s judgment accurately adjudicated the equivalency and distribution of the property lots as evidenced in the different exhibits.
Whether the proper allocation of Lot 6-A (or its equivalent Lot 18-a) should be modified based on the expenditure incurred for publication and other incidental processes.
Whether the reservation of the right to apply in a separate proceeding for the registration of a portion of Lot A affects the main adjudication of the said property.
Whether the payment by the oppositor (Ignacio Dimson and his wife) for their proportionate share of expenses is a just and equitable remedy under the referenced statutes.
Whether the appellate modification aligns with the provisions of Act No. 3621 amending Article 37 of Act No. 496 regarding property adjudication and associated expenses.