Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1932 > February 1932 Decisions > G.R. No. 36666 February 16, 1932 - PILAR AGRA,ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, ET AL.

056 Phil 528:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 36666. February 16, 1932.]

PILAR AGRA ET AL., Petitioners, v. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, Judge of First Instance of Laguna, JUAN FUENTES and RAMONA SANTIAGO, Respondents.

Mario Guariña, for Petitioners.

Jose G. Generoso and Vicente O. Romualdez, for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. LAND REGISTRATION; BILL OF EXCEPTIONS; PERIOD FOR FILING. — According to the rule laid down in Director of Lands v. Maurera and Tiongson (37 Phil., 410), and Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Ruiz Sunico and Catli (36 Phil., 279), even in registration proceedings the time during which a motion is pending must not be counted in computing the thirty days fixed in section 14, Act No. 496, as amended by section 26, Act No. 2347, for filing the bill of exceptions.


D E C I S I O N


VILLA-REAL, J.:


This is a petition filed by Pilar Agra Et. Al., against Judge Francisco Zandueta Et. Al., praying, for the reasons given, that a writ of mandamus be issued requiring the respondent judge to approve and certify the bill of exceptions of which a copy is attached to the petition.

The following relevant facts are necessary to decide the questions raised:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

On August 23, 1930, Juan Fuentes and his wife, Ramona Santiago, petitioned the court, after the proper proceedings, to confirm them in the possession of certain parcels of land, among others, which they had purchased of Pilar Agra, and to have said land registered in their name.

On October 20, 1930, Aurora Guysayco, alleging that she was a daughter of Pilar Agra, opposed the application upon the ground that the parcels of land in question belonged to her mother.

On December 2, 1930, Pilar Agra and her husband, Regino Arevalo, filed an opposition to the application, amended on February 28, 1931, contending that Pilar Agra is the owner of those parcels of land, and that her sale of them was null, because she was a married woman, and did not have her husband’s consent to the transaction.

On September 10, 1931, the respondent judge rendered judgment in favor of the applicants and against the opponents, who were notified thereof on September 12, 1931.

On October 1, 1931, Pilar Agra moved for a new trial.

On October 5, 1931, the opponents were notified that the court had denied their motion.

On October 10, 1931, they excepted to said order and announced their intention to appeal; and on October 16, 1931, they filed the bill of exceptions for the court’s approval and certification. On October 27, 1931, the applicants objected to the admission of the bill of exceptions on the following grounds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"1. Exception to the judgment in this case has not been duly and legally taken.

"2. All the opponents ask for the approval of the bill of exceptions, whereas, only the opponent, Pilar Agra, moved for a new trial.

"3. The bill of exceptions was filed outside the period prescribed by the law.

"4. The bill of exceptions does not include the following pleadings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(a) he first opposition to the application, signed by Aurora Guysayco, and dated October 28, 1930.

(b) he so-called ’Exception and Notice of Appeal’ signed by Pilar Agra and dated October 7, 1931.

"5. he pleading dated October 8, 1931, on page 18 of the bill of exceptions should not be included."cralaw virtua1aw library

On November 14, 1931, the respondent judge entered an order sustaining the opposition and disapproving the bill of exceptions upon the second, third and fourth grounds alleged in the objection.

There is some question as to whether the opponents were notified of the judgment on the 11th or on the 12th of September, 1931. The attorney for the petitioners states under oath in the petition that his clients were notified of it on September 12, 1931, and that the date of September 11, 1931, found in the bill of exceptions is a mistake. The respondents do not deny this, but merely say that the petitioners have made no correction in the aforesaid bill of exceptions. We may therefore admit that the true date is September 12, 1931.

With reference to the second and fourth grounds, although the motion for a new trial should have been filed by Pilar Agra and her husband, Regino Arevalo, the omission of the latter’s name by the attorney for the opponents may and should be corrected.

As for opponent Aurora Guysayco, there is no need of including her opposition in the bill of exceptions, for she there acknowledges that the property in question belongs to her mother, Pilar Agra.

With regard to the third ground, upon which the respondent judge mainly relied in declining to approve the bill of exceptions: From September 12, 1931, when the petitioners were notified of the judgment in the registration case, until October 1, 1931, when the motion for a new trial was filed, nineteen days elapsed; from the 1st to the 5th of October, 1931, when the opponents were notified of the order denying said motion for a new trial, four days elapsed; from the 5th to the 10th of October, 1931, when the opponents filed their notice of exception and appeal, five days elapsed; and from the 10th to the 16th of October, 1931, when the bill of exceptions was filed, six days elapsed. All in all, from September 12, 1931, when the opponents- petitioners were notified of the judgment rendered against them, until October 16, 1931, when they filed by the bill of exceptions, thirty-four days elapsed. According to the rule laid down in Director of Lands v. Maurera and Tiongson (37 Phil., 410), and Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Ruiz Sunico and Catli (36 Phil., 279), which were cited in Santiago v. Manuel and Tumale (39 Phil., 869), even in registration cases, the time during which a motion is pending, must not be counted. Taking then, from the total for a new trial was pending, we have thirty days left, which is the period fixed in section 14 of Act No. 496, as amended by section 26 of Act No. 2347.

Wherefore, the petition is hereby granted, and the respondent judge or the present judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, is hereby ordered to approve and certify the bill of exceptions, after amendment to include Regino Arevalo as an opponent, with costs against the respondents Juan Fuentes and Ramona Santiago. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Romualdez and Imperial, 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






February-1932 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 36886 February 1, 1932 - CLEMENTE LACESTE v. PAULINO SANTOS

    056 Phil 472

  • G.R. No. 35357 February 2, 1932 - GUILLERMO B. GUEVARA v. ROSAURO ALMARIO

    056 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 36599 February 2, 1932 - LEON ABANILLA v. PASTOR VILLAS

    056 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 36828 February 2, 1932 - ARTURO V. ESCALANTE v. PAULINO SANTOS

    056 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 36131 February 4, 1932 - GREGORIO J. BORJA v. MANUEL H. ROXAS

    056 Phil 488

  • G.R. No. 34192 February 6, 1932 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO ABALOS, ET AL.

    056 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. 35258 February 6, 1932 - NARCISO PENGSON v. MODESTO TECSON, ET AL.

    056 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 34350 February 12, 1932 - CORPORACION DE PP. AGUSTINOS v. LEON DEL REY

    056 Phil 512

  • G.R. No. 35523 February 13, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VEDASTO PANCHO

    056 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. 35762 February 13, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR T. ALCARAZ

    056 Phil 520

  • G.R. No. 34480 February 16, 1932 - PHILIPPINE TRUST COMPANY v. CLARA WEBBER, ET AL.

    056 Phil 522

  • G.R. No. 36666 February 16, 1932 - PILAR AGRA,ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ZANDUETA, ET AL.

    056 Phil 528

  • G.R. No. 34648 February 18, 1932 - JOSE ALVAREZ v. CASIMIRO NATIVIDAD, ET AL.

    056 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. 34194 February 20, 1932 - BENIGNA CAUNAN v. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    056 Phil 542

  • G.R. No. 35980 February 20, 1932 - GO CHEN and GO LEK v. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF CEBU

    056 Phil 550

  • G.R. No. 33870 February 23, 1932 - COLLECTION OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ESPIRIDION VILLEGAS

    056 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 34686 February 24, 1932 - PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. ANTIGUA BOTICA RAMIREZ

    056 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. 35270 February 24, 1932 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO G. FRANCISCO

    056 Phil 572