Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1911 > December 1911 Decisions > G.R. No. 7363 December 20, 1911 - PATRICIA REQUEPO v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOCOS SUR, ET AL

021 Phil 77:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 7363. December 20, 1911.]

PATRICIA REQUEPO, Petitioner, v. THE JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOCOS SUR and JOSE ROSALES, Respondents.

A. M. Jimenez for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. UNLAWFUL DETAINER; APPEAL FROM DECISION OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE; OBLIGATION REQUIRED BY THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. — It is provided by section 2 of Act No. 1778, amending section 88 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that if a defendant appeals from a judgment of a justice of the peace, in cases of the unlawful detainer of realty, he shall give to the plaintiff security by an obligation, with sufficient sureties, approved by the justice of the peace, to enter the action in the Court of First Instance, and to pay rents, damages and costs, and that the defendant and the sureties shall be liable upon their obligation for damages and costs, down to the time of the final judgment. And, further, that an appeal shall not be allowed until such obligation has been filed and it is proven that, at the time of the appeal, all money adjudged to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff, has been either paid to the plaintiff or deposited in court.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; FAILURE OF APPELLANT TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE. — The defendant in this case, in the court of the justice of the peace, did not comply or even attempt to comply with the express provisions of the code. Had the defendant presented to the justice of the peace a bond or undertaking, even though it were defective, such defect could have been cured in the Court of First Instance, provided that it had first been made to appear to the court that the appeal was taken in good faith and not for delay.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; FAILURE OF JURISDICTION; DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL. — Under the circumstances, the Court of First Instance acquired no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, except to dismiss the appeal provided that the appellee, as in this case, opportunely requested such dismissal.

4. WHEN JURISDICTION FAILS, DISMISSAL IS A MINISTERIAL ACT; MANDAMUS. — The dismissal of the appeal from the court of the justice of the peace, upon the first motion of the plaintiff, would have been but a ministerial act wherein the judge had no discretion. It is well settled that the Supreme Court has power to compel judges of inferior courts to perform strictly ministerial acts under positive laws.


D E C I S I O N


TRENT, J.:


This is an original action, instituted in this court under the provisions of section 515 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the plaintiff, Patricia Requepo, prays that a writ of mandamus be issued, directed to the Hon. Dionisio Chanco, judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Ilocos Sur, directing him to dismiss a certain appeal pending before him.

Notwithstanding that the defendants were duly summoned on October 10, 1911, they have failed to enter their appearance, answer, or demurrer to the complaint. Consequently, the facts alleged must be taken as confessed.

Patricia Requepo instituted a civil suit in the justice of the peace court of San Vicente, Ilocos Sur, during the month of May, 1911, against Jose Rosales, defendant, to recover the possession of a certain parcel of land. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her possession of said land, together with P13 damages and the costs of the cause. From this judgment the defendant Rosales attempted to appeal to the Court of First Instance. He did not file any bond or undertaking whatsoever with the justice of the peace, neither did he pay or deposit the P13, damages and the costs. Nevertheless, the justice of the peace certified the record to the Court of First Instance, where the cause was placed upon the docket. The plaintiff presented a motion on September 11, 1911, to the presiding judge, one of the defendants in the case at bar, asking that said appeal be dismissed. This motion was based upon the ground that the defendant Rosales had not only failed to present an appeal bond, but had also failed to pay the damages and costs as required by Act No. 1778. The defendant judge denied this motion, but directed the appellant in that case (Rosales) to present the bond required by said Act within twenty-four hours. The bond was presented as directed. On the following day, the 12th of September, the plaintiff presented another motion, which was likewise denied, in which she again asked the court to dismiss said appeal. This latter motion was based upon the same grounds as the first.

The plaintiff now contends that her only plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to obtain the relief sought is through this court in an action of mandamus.

Section 2 of Act No. 1778, amending section 88 of Act No. 190, provides among other things that if the defendant appeals from the judgment of the justice of the peace in cases of unlawful detainer of real property:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"He shall give to the plaintiff security by an obligation, with sufficient sureties, approved by the justice of the peace, to enter the action in the Court of First Instance, and to pay rents, damages, and costs, and the defendant and the sureties shall be liable upon their obligation for damages and costs, down to the time of final judgment in the action."cralaw virtua1aw library

This section further provides that —

"The appeal shall not be allowed until such obligation has been filed with the justice and it is proven that at the time such appeal is taken all money found by the judgment to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff, either as rent or as the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises, as the case may be, has been paid to the plaintiff or deposited in the court."cralaw virtua1aw library

The defendant, in the justice of the peace court, did not comply or even attempt to comply with these express provisions of the statute. He presented, as we have said, in that court no bond or obligation whatever, neither did he order to present any such obligation. He did not pay or deposit or offer to do so the damages and costs. He presented a bond only when directed to do so by the Court of First Instance, after the plaintiff had presented a motion asking that court to dismiss the appeal. He has not yet paid or deposited the damages and costs.

It has been suggested that as the plaintiff failed to except to the order of the court denying her first motion, she, by this failure, waived her rights with reference to the bond. It is true that she did not enter a formal exception to this ruling of the court, but she did immediately present another motion, again asking the court to dismiss that appeal and this motion was based upon the ground that the defendant had failed to present the bond as required by the statute and also that he had failed to pay or deposit the costs and damages. A formal exception could have availed her nothing, as she could not have appealed to this court from the final judgment of the Court of First Instance in that case. The fact that she presented this second motion immediately after the ruling of the court on her first motion, shows conclusively that she did not consent to that order or waive any of her rights in the premises.

In the case of Tirangbuaya v. Judge of First Instance of Rizal (14 Phil. Rep. 613), this court said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We have frequently held that the Legislature, under its general authority to regulate appellate procedure, may require appeal bonds of the appellant in both civil and criminal cases, and in our decisions we have on many occasions recognized and accepted the general principle that acts required by statute to perfect an appeal are jurisdictional, and must be complied with to vest the appellate court with power to entertain the appeal. Manifestly, therefore, neither the appellate nor the trial court, over the objection of appellee, can dispense with the statutory security or accept a security of a different character from that named in the statute, and it follows, as of course, that where no bond is given, the appeal must, upon motion of the appellee, be dismissed or stricken from the docket, unless it appears that the requirement has been waived by the appellee, as a technical step in appellate procedure purely for the appellee’s benefit.

"So also when an instrument purporting to be an appeal bond is so fatally defective as to be absolutely void or is not such an instrument as is contemplated by the statute, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction. (Macondray & Co. v. Quintero Et. Al., 6 Phil. Rep., 429.)

"But an appeal bond or undertaking is sufficient where it substantially complies with the statute, although it varies from its language, provided its legal effect is to secure to the appellee all the rights contemplated by the statute requiring the bond. (Mejia v. Alimorong, 4 Phil. Rep., 572.)"

Had the defendant Rosales presented the bond or undertaking to the justice of the peace and if such bond or undertaking had been defective, these defects could have been cured in the Court of First Instance, even over the objection of the plaintiff, provided that it had been made to appear to the Court of First Instance that the appeal was taken in good faith and not for delay; but where, as in the case under consideration, no attempt whatever was made to comply with the express provisions of the statute, the Court of First Instance acquired no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action, except to dismiss the appeal if the appellee, in due time, requested the dismissal. We find no adjudicated case, either in this jurisdiction or in the United States, where the appellate court has been allowed to take and retain jurisdiction where no attempt was made in the justice of the peace court to comply with the statute.

The dismissing of the appeal upon the first motion of the plaintiff is a ministerial act wherein the defendant judge had no discretion. It is well settled that this court has the power to compel judges of inferior courts to perform purely ministerial acts under positive laws.

Therefore, we hereby command the defendant Hon. Dionisio Chanco, or whomsoever may be acting as judge of Ilocos Sur, to immediately dismiss the appeal in question and return the record to the justice of the peace court from whence it came, with instructions to proceed with the execution of the judgment.

The defendant Jose Rosales will pay the costs of these proceedings.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Johnson, and Moreland, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1911 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 6592 December 12, 1911 - MACLEOD & Co. v. SIMEON MARFORI, ET AL

    021 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. 6868 December 14, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO IGLESIA, ET AL

    021 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 6513 December 15, 1911 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. ANA ALEJANDRINO, ET AL

    021 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 6828 December 15, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO DE LA ROSA

    021 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. 6829 December 15, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ASLUL

    021 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. L-5887 December 16, 1911 - THE UNITED STATES v. LOOK CHAW alias LUK CHIU

    018 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 6317 December 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. YAM TUNG WAY

    021 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 6969 December 20, 1911 - VICENTE REYES v. JOSE GREY, ET AL.

    021 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 7363 December 20, 1911 - PATRICIA REQUEPO v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOCOS SUR, ET AL

    021 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. 6495 December 23, 1911 - SIMEON TAN-SUYCO v. ELENA JAVIER, ET AL

    021 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 6867 December 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMINO PLANAS

    021 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 6217 December 26, 1911 - CHARLES W. MEAD v. E. C. McCULLOUGH, ET AL.

    021 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. 6638 December 28, 1911 - LEOPOLDO CAÑIZARES TIANA v. JOSE M. S. TORREJON

    021 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 6076 December 29, 1911 - SEVERINA, ET AL v. ISIDRO SANTAMARIA

    021 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. 6119 December 1, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE LOCSON, ET AL.

    020 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. 6287 December 1, 1911 - THE MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ET AL.

    020 Phil 523

  • G.R. No. 5695 December 2, 1911 - GREGORIO MADARIAGA, ET AL. v. MANUEL CASTRO

    020 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. 5698 December 2, 1911 - HEINRICH BEISNER v. JUAN SEIBOTH

    020 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 6609 December 2, 1911 - FELIPE DE GUZMAN v. MANUEL DE SANTOS Y CABRERA

    021 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 5701 December 4, 1911 - MARCELA GONZALEZ v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT

    021 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. 6787 December 4, 1911 - JUAN MERCADO v. FLORENCIO NOEL

    021 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. 6772 December 5, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO BREDEJO, ET AL

    021 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. 6515 December 7, 1911.

    PASCUAL RODOLFA v. LUIS SERMONIA, ET AL.

    021 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 6452 December 12, 1911 - MANUEL RIOBO v. RAMON HONTIVEROS, ET AL.

    021 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. 6592 December 12, 1911 - MACLEOD & Co. v. SIMEON MARFORI, ET AL

    021 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. 6868 December 14, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO IGLESIA, ET AL

    021 Phil 55

  • G.R. No. 6513 December 15, 1911 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. ANA ALEJANDRINO, ET AL

    021 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. 6828 December 15, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. GREGORIO DE LA ROSA

    021 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. 6829 December 15, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. ASLUL

    021 Phil 65

  • G.R. No. L-5887 December 16, 1911 - THE UNITED STATES v. LOOK CHAW alias LUK CHIU

    018 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 6317 December 18, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. YAM TUNG WAY

    021 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 6969 December 20, 1911 - VICENTE REYES v. JOSE GREY, ET AL.

    021 Phil 73

  • G.R. No. 7363 December 20, 1911 - PATRICIA REQUEPO v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOCOS SUR, ET AL

    021 Phil 77

  • G.R. No. 6495 December 23, 1911 - SIMEON TAN-SUYCO v. ELENA JAVIER, ET AL

    021 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. 6867 December 23, 1911 - UNITED STATES v. MAXIMINO PLANAS

    021 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 6217 December 26, 1911 - CHARLES W. MEAD v. E. C. McCULLOUGH, ET AL.

    021 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. 6638 December 28, 1911 - LEOPOLDO CAÑIZARES TIANA v. JOSE M. S. TORREJON

    021 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 6076 December 29, 1911 - SEVERINA, ET AL v. ISIDRO SANTAMARIA

    021 Phil 132