Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1918 > August 1918 Decisions > G.R. No. 13453 August 7, 1918 - PEDRO N. LIONGSON v. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

038 Phil 447:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 13453. August 7, 1918. ]

PEDRO N. LIONGSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ATANASIO DE LOS REYES, MARIANO DE LOS REYES, GREGORIO CASTRO, SEVERINO MESINA, BASILIO DIZON, as administrator of the estate of Juan Barnelo Datu, and CIRIACO GONZALES, objectors-appellees.

Eduardo Gutierrez David and Pedro N. Liongson, for Appellant.

Leodegario Azarraga, for Appellees.

SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL; DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE OF APPELLANT TO PRESENT HIS BRIEF IN TIME. — Held: Under the facts stated in the opinion, that the appeal should be dismissed for the reason that the appellant failed to present his brief within the time prescribed.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


This is a motion to dismiss the appeal based upon the ground that the appellant failed to present his brief within the time prescribed. Rule 23 of the Supreme Court provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"RULE 23. — If the appellant fails to serve his brief within the time aforesaid (Rule 21), the court may, on motion of the appellee and notice to the appellant, dismiss the bill of exceptions on appeal . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

The facts of record in the present case, of importance for a consideration of the motion presented, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) This action was commenced in the Court of Land Registration by the petitioner and appellant on the 2d day of August, 1915.

(2) On the 3d day of August, 1915, the petitioner and appellant presented a petition praying that a preliminary injunction, ex parte, be issued against some of the defendants and appellees to prevent them from interfering in any way whatsoever with the possession of the land involved in the original petition.

(3) On the 4th day of August, 1915, the Honorable Vicente Nepomuceno, judge, issued an order directing that the said injunction be issued upon the presentation of a bond in the sum of P500 by the petitioner and appellant

(4) On the 5th day of August, 1915, the petitioner, together with two sureties, executed and delivered said required bond for the sum of P500.

(5) On the 4th day of August, 1915, and the day before the execution and delivery of the bond required, the injunction prayed for was granted and duly served upon the respective parties upon the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th day of August, 1915.

(6) On the 23d day of August, 1915, the petitioner and appellant presented another petition, praying that an injunction, ex parte, be issued against other persons who he claimed were interfering with the possession of the land in question as well as the possession of other lands which were then involved in other litigation. (Cases 784 and 785.)

(7) On the 4th day of September, 1915, the Honorable Vicente Nepomuceno ordered the injunction prayed for in each of said cases also. (784 and 785.)

(8) On the 16th day of September, 1915, a bond was given by the petitioner and appellant in this particular cause, and on the 18th day of September, 1915, the injunction prayed for was duly issued.

(9) Later, various oppositions were interposed against the registration of the parcel of land in question.

(10) Finally, the present petition, together with three others (Cases No. 784, 785 and 825) were duly brought on for trial, and after hearing the evidence, the Honorable Vicente Nepomuceno, on the 15th day of January, 1917, rendered a final decision denying the petition for the registration of the parcel of land involved in the present case and dismissed the same without costs.

(11) A motion for a rehearing was made by the petitioner in each of said causes as well as in the present case (Cases No. 784, 785 and 825) and was granted in part, on the 8th day of February, 1917.

(12) From the decision of the lower court the petitioner duly appealed to this court.

(13) On the 17th of February, 1917, the petitioner asked that he be given thirty days within which to present a bill of exceptions in each of said causes.

(14) On the 15th day of March, 1917, the petitioner asked for another extension of time within which to present his bill of exceptions which petition was granted on the same day giving the petitioner and appellant forty days within which to present his bill of exceptions.

(15) The bill of exceptions was actually presented in the court on the 23d day of April, 1917.

(16) The expediente in the present case, as well as those in the other three cases mentioned, was received in the Supreme Court upon the 13th day of October, 1917. The appellant was notified on the 19th day of October, 1917, to deposit the sum of P24 as the filing fee in the Supreme Court, and the sum of P74.37 for printing the bill of exceptions.

(17) The appellant having failed to make said deposits mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the appellees, on the 19th day of November, 1917, presented a motion praying that the appeal be dismissed, for the reason that the appellant had failed to make the deposits required. On the 5th day of December, 1917, the appellant having deposited the required amounts in accordance with the notice above referred to, the motion of the appellees to dismiss the appeal was denied.

(18) On the 12th day of January, 1918, the petitioner and appellant presented his printed bill of exceptions.

(19) On the 18th day of January, 1918, the petitioner and appellant presented a motion praying that the stenographer be required to send to this court a transcript of the evidence taken during the trial in said various causes, and on the 30th day of January, 1918, said petition was granted and the said transcript was duly received in the Supreme Court on the 25th day of April, 1918, of which fact the appellant was duly notified on the 26th day of April, 1918.

(20) On the 22d day of May, 1918, the appellant presented a petition asking that he be given two months within which to present his brief, which petition was granted upon the 27th day of May, 1918, giving the appellant fifteen days only within which to present his brief.

(21) On the 7th day of June, 1918, the appellant presented another petition asking that he be given one month within which to present his brief, which petition was granted on the 12th day of June, 1918.

(22) On the 17th day of July, 1918, the appellant having failed to present his brief within the time granted, the appellees presented the present motion asking that the appeal be dismissed, for the reason that the appellant had failed to present his brief within time.

(23) On the 20th day of July, 1918, the appellant presented his brief.

Considering the foregoing facts and the unnecessary annoyances to which the petitioner has put the defendants, and the apparent effort to delay a final disposition of the case, we are of the opinion, and so decide, that the motion to dismiss should be and is hereby granted, with costs to the appellants. So ordered.

Torres, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña and Fisher, 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






August-1918 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 12907 August 1, 1918 - VIVENCIO CERRANO v. TAN CHUCO

    038 Phil 392

  • G.R. No. 12103 August 2, 1918 - JUAN GUTING v. JULIAN ROMBAOA ET AL.

    038 Phil 400

  • G.R. No. 12342 August 3, 1918 - A. A. ADDISON v. MARCIANA FELIX, ET AL.

    038 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 11992 August 5, 1918 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO V. HERRERO

    038 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 11796 August 5, 1918 - IN RE: ANA M. RAMIREZ v. OTTO GMUR

    042 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. 12287 August 7, 1918 - VICENTE MADRIGAL, ET AL. v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    038 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. 12611 August 7, 1918 - FELIPE AGONCILLO v. CRISANTO JAVIER

    038 Phil 424

  • G.R. No. 12949 August 7, 1918 - LOUIS OTTOFY v. JAMES S. DUNN

    038 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. 13453 August 7, 1918 - PEDRO N. LIONGSON v. THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ET AL.

    038 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. 13210 August 9, 1918 - MARIANO LIMJAP v. J. MACHUCA & CO.

    038 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 11627 August 10, 1918 - MUNICIPALITY OF MANGALDAN v. MUNICIPALITY OF MANAOAG

    038 Phil 455

  • G.R. No. 12707 August 10, 1918 - MRS. HENRY E. HARDING, ET AL. v. COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY

    038 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. 13051 August 10, 1918 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM COMPANY (PHILIPPINE ISLANDS) LTD. v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    038 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 12464 August 20, 1918 - MARIANO DE LOS REYES v. PABLO RAZON, ET AL.

    038 Phil 480

  • G.R. No. 12712 August 21, 1918 - JOSEFA DE LA CRUZ v. GELASIO CAPINPIN, ET AL.

    038 Phil 492

  • G.R. No. 12894 August 21, 1918 - AMBROSIA KALAW v. ALEJANDRO VIRREY, ET AL.

    038 Phil 498

  • G.R. No. 11491 August 23, 1918 - ANDRES QUIROGA v. PARSONS HARDWARE CO.

    038 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 11962 August 27, 1918 - PHILIP C. WHITAKER v. JAMES J. RAFFERTY

    038 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 12687 August 27, 1918 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM COMPANY (LTD.) v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    038 Phil 510

  • G.R. No. 12308 August 28, 1918 - ED. A. KELLER & CO. (LTD.) v. ELLERMAN & BUCKNALL STEAMSHIP CO. (LTD.) , ET AL.

    038 Phil 514

  • G.R. No. 12375 August 30, 1918 - DY KIU v. CROSSFIELD & O’BRIEN

    038 Phil 521