ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
February-1916 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 10173 February 1, 1916 - MARIANO VELASCO & Co. v. GOCHUICO CO.

    033 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 10935 February 1, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO E. VELASQUEZ

    033 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. 9184 February 2, 1916 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. GEORGE C. SELLNER

    033 Phil 370

  • G.R. No. 10129 February 2, 1916 - CLARA TAMBUNTING v. EDILBERTO SANTOS

    033 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. 10744 February 2, 1916 - ANTONIO RAYMUNDO v. AMBROSIO CARPIO

    033 Phil 395

  • G.R. No. 10841 February 2, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE LOS SANTOS

    033 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. 11086 February 2, 1916 - MARTINIANO VALDEZCO SY CHIOK v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 406

  • G.R. No. 11399 February 2, 1916 - REAL MONASTERIO DE SANTA CLARA v. PANFILO VILLAMAR

    033 Phil 411

  • G.R. No. 10121 February 3, 1916 - MAURICIA SOTO v. DOMINGA ONG

    033 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 10107 February 4, 1916 - CLARA CEREZO v. ATLANTIC GULF & PACIFIC COMPANY

    033 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. 8769 February 5, 1916 - SMITH, BELL & CO. v. MARIANO MARONILLA

    041 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. 9802 February 5, 1916 - TEC BI & CO. v. THE CHARTERED BANK OF INDIA

    041 Phil 596

  • G.R. No. 10345 February 5, 1916 - KUENZLE & STREIFF (LTD.) v. JUAN VILLANUEVA

    041 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 10078 February 5, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELINO DACAIMAT

    033 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 9038 February 7, 1916 - PEDRO MAGAYANO v. TOMAS GAPUZAN

    033 Phil 453

  • G.R. No. 10280 February 7, 1916 - ENGRACIO CORONEL v. CENON ONA

    033 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 8166 February 8, 1916 - JORGE DOMALAGAN v. CARLOS BOLIFER

    033 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 10548 February 9, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SATURNO DE IRO

    033 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 10104 February 10, 1916 - ROMANA CORTES v. FLORENCIO G. OLIVA

    033 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 10251 February 10, 1916 - COMPAÑIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO.

    033 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 10619 February 10, 1916 - COMPANIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ALHAMBRA CIGAR & CIGARETTE MANUFACTURING CO.

    033 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 9596 February 11, 1916 - MARCOS MENDOZA v. FRANCISCO DE LEON

    033 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 11048 February 11, 1916 - LIM PUE v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    033 Phil 519

  • G.R. No. 11081 February 11, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MORO MOHAMAD

    033 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. 9977 February 12, 1916 - DOROTEO KARAGDAG v. FILOMENA BARADO

    033 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 11065 February 12, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. LOPE K. SANTOS

    033 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 9966 February 14, 1916 - TRINIDAD DE AYALA v. ANTONIO M. BARRETTO

    033 Phil 538

  • G.R. No. 10427 February 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. SOY CHUY

    033 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. 10666 February 14, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. QUE SIANG

    033 Phil 548

  • G.R. No. 10951 February 14, 1916 - K.S. YOUNG v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    033 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 8914 February 15, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. RAYMUNDO ZAPANTA

    033 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 9277 February 15, 1916 - ANDRES CALON y MARTIN v. BALBINO ENRIQUEZ

    033 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 9822 February 15, 1916 - BENIGNO SOLIS v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

    033 Phil 574

  • G.R. No. 10722 February 18, 1916 - DOLORES A IGNACIO v. FELISA MARTINEZ

    033 Phil 576

  • G.R. No. 10516 February 19, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. AGAPITO SOLAÑA

    033 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 10323 February 21, 1916 - PETRA DE CASTRO v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF BOCAUE

    033 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. 9204 February 24, 1916 - LAZARO PASCUAL v. FELIPE PASCUAL

    033 Phil 603

  • G.R. No. 10531 February 25, 1916 - JULIANA MELIZA v. PABLO ARANETA

    033 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 10672 October 26, 1915

    UNITED STATES v. CARMEN IBAÑEZ

    033 Phil 611

  • G.R. No. 8271 February 26, 1916 - PETRONILA MARQUEZ v. FLORENTINA SACAY

    034 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 10934 February 26, 1916 - PP. AGUSTINOS RECOLETOS v. GALO LICHAUCO ET AL.

    034 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 10675 February 28, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. YAP TIAN JONG

    034 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 9665 February 29, 1916 - IN RE: AMBROSIO RABALO v. GABINA RABALO

    034 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 10244 February 29, 1916 - SANTIAGO CRUZADO v. ESTEFANIA BUSTOS

    034 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. 11006 February 29, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. MATEO BALBIN

    034 Phil 38

  • G.R. Nos. 11055 & 11056 February 29, 1916 - UNITED STATES v. ANGEL ANG

    034 Phil 44

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 11399   February 2, 1916 - REAL MONASTERIO DE SANTA CLARA v. PANFILO VILLAMAR<br /><br />033 Phil 411

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 11399. February 2, 1916. ]

    REAL MONASTERIO DE SANTA CLARA, applicant-respondent, v. PANFILO VILLAMAR ET AL., respondents-petitioners.

    Gibbs, McDonough & Blanco, for Petitioners.

    Perfecto Gabriel for Respondent.

    SYLLABUS


    1. MANDAMUS TO COMPEL JUDGE TO SIGN BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. — The application for a writ of mandamus to compel a Court of Land Registration to sign and approve a bill of exceptions duly prepared and offered for approval by the appellants will be denied where it appears on the applicant’s own showing that the judgment appealed from must be affirmed. Litigation will not be continued where it appears from the showing of the party desiring it that the continuance of the litigation cannot benefit him.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORELAND, J. :


    This is a petition to compel the Court of Land Registration to sign and approve a bill of exceptions duly prepared and offered for approval by the respondents in that court.

    The facts are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The Court of Land Registration ordered the registration, in favor of the applicant, of title to certain land in a proceeding in which there were 28 respondents, petitioners here, who claimed to own the lands described in their respective answers to the application. Appeals were taken by the 28 respondents. The Supreme Court held that the appeals were well taken and ordered the exclusion from the decree of registration of the lands claimed by the respondents. The case was returned with instruction to make a new survey and plan of applicant’s lands, after excluding those of the respondents, and to decree the registration of the title to the lands remaining after such exclusion. The land court carried out the instructions of this court. a new plan was made, duly approved after notice to the respondents, and the decree of registration entered.

    The petitioners in this case now desire to appeal from that decree asserting, as the ground of the appeal, the fact that they were not given an opportunity to determine whether the new plan was correct or not, and, accordingly, whether, by its lines, it gave them all the land which this court gave them on the appeal.

    We have no doubt about the right to appeal from a decree entered in the manner and under the circumstances described. Certainly, if the new plan took from the respondents, or any one of them, any part of the land given them by the Supreme Court, they would be prejudiced in a way which would permit an appeal to this court. (Cuyugan and Lim Tuico v. Sy Quia, 24 Phil. Rep., 567.) But the petitioners do not now contend that they have suffered such an injury. They content simply that they have not had an opportunity to be heard on that subject. By their own admissions it appears that they were given from the month of March to November to present to the Land Court any grievance which they might have against the new plan, and that they did not take advantage of that opportunity. They offer various excuses why they did not appear at the time or times set by the court for the purpose of giving them an opportunity to offer objections to the new plan; but none of those reasons furnish a ground for declaring that the court abused its discretion in proceeding to the entry of the final decree without their presence. The case is, in effect, one of default either in appearance or in failure to defend and the rules laid down by this court with respect to defaults must apply here. It is clear that the only relief which could be afforded on the appeal prayed for would be to send the case back to the Land Court to give the applicants another opportunity to do what they have already had an opportunity to do. In other words, the appeal would decide nothing but the right of the appellants to have the land surveyed, or to examine the new plan, or do any other thing necessary to determine whether they would be injured by a decree based on the new plan. In other words, the appeal, if favorable to the appellants, would do nothing more, in effect, than open a default and give them an opportunity to defend themselves.

    The question that is presented, therefore, is Will this court reverse a decree based on a default or failure to defend, when no abuse of discretion or error of law has been shown? The question must be answered in the negative. While section 499 [Code Civ. Pro. ] requires a court to sign and approve a bill of exceptions, it will not be compelled to do so when it appears from the petitioners’ own showing, that the judgment appealed from must be affirmed. Litigation will not be continued when it appears from the showing of the party desiring it that the continuance of the litigation cannot benefit him. Moreover, the petitioners have not shown that, if given the opportunity, they could present a meritorious claim or defense. No error in the new plan is shown or alleged; and it is nowhere claimed that a reversal of the decree would benefit them in any degree. Without such a showing we will not, generally speaking, open a default. (Coombs v. Santos, 24 Phil. Rep., 446.)

    The petition for the writ is dismissed. So ordered.

    Arellano, C.J., Torres, and Araullo, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 11399   February 2, 1916 - REAL MONASTERIO DE SANTA CLARA v. PANFILO VILLAMAR<br /><br />033 Phil 411


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED