FACTS:
The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church filed an action against the Municipality of Badoc and other localities of Ilocos Norte on 4 November 1905 under Act No. 1376 of the Philippine Commission. The defendants—led by Bishop Gregorio Aglipay and the municipalities—filed answers denying every allegation. On 10 October 1906 they moved to dismiss, asserting: (1) the plaintiffs’ claims were fully denied; (2) the statutory sixty‑day period for the plaintiffs to present evidence had expired; (3) the plaintiffs offered no supporting proof; and (4) the land in dispute was public domain belonging to the municipalities, not to the Catholic Church, which allegedly never possessed juridical personality in the Philippines before 1902. The motion was argued on 22 October 1906.

The Supreme Court examined each ground. It held that a mere denial by defendants does not bar the plaintiffs from presenting proof, so the first ground fails. Regarding the sixty‑day limitation, the Court read sections 5 and 6 of Act 1376 together, finding that the countdown cannot commence until the parties have had seven days to stipulate agreed facts or until the Court itself designates a commissioner or otherwise indicates readiness to receive testimony. Since no stipulation had been made and no commissioner had been appointed, the period had not yet begun. Consequently, the second ground was dismissed. The third ground was rejected because the plaintiffs had not yet been afforded an opportunity to produce evidence. The fourth ground, concerning ownership, was deemed a factual issue to be resolved after evidence is taken, and therefore could not pre‑empt dismissal. The motion to dismiss was denied.

Subsequent pleadings saw the plaintiffs seek an order fixing the sixty‑day period for taking evidence and the appointment of a commissioner. The Court granted their request conditionally: (a) the parties must, within seven days of the decision, file a stipulation of agreed facts pursuant to section 6; and (b) if they fail, within ten days thereafter, the Court will appoint a commissioner who shall promptly set the time and place for taking testimony and notify counsel.

ISSUE:
Whether the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action should be granted on the grounds of total denial, alleged expiration of the statutory period for plaintiff‑initiated evidence, lack of supporting proof, and the claim that the subject property is public domain, and how the time limits in Act No. 1376 should be interpreted for the commencement of evidence‑taking.

RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It held that denial of allegations does not extinguish the plaintiff’s right to prove them, and that the sixty‑day period for the plaintiff to present evidence does not begin until the Court either acknowledges readiness for proof or appoints a commissioner, after the parties have had the statutory seven days to stipulate agreed facts. The Court ordered the parties to submit a stipulation within seven days; failing such agreement, the Court will appoint a commissioner within ten days of its decision and set the schedule for evidence. The ownership dispute remains pending for resolution upon the taking of testimony.