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
 

   
April-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1749 April 2, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCAS GEMPES

    083 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. L-1441 April 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL N. MORENO

    083 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-2179 April 12, 1949 - MANILA TRADING petitioner v. MANILA TRADING LABORERS’ ASSN.

    083 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-979 April 13, 1949 - COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHIL. v. FAR EASTERN SURETY

    083 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-2745 April 13, 1949 - FLAVIANO ROMERO v. POTENCIANO PECSON

    083 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. L-856 April 18, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUSANO PEREZ

    083 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-493 April 19, 1949 - SANTIAGO BANAAG v. VICENTE SINGSON ENCARNACION

    083 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-1545 April 19, 1949 - E. R. CRUZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN.

    083 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 48671 April 19, 1949 - EUSEBIO BELVIZ v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA

    083 Phil 337

  • G.R. No. L-364 April 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO T. JAUCIAN

    083 Phil 340

  • G.R. No. L-1282 April 25, 1949 - JUAN S. BARROZO v. MARCELINO T. MACARAEG

    083 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-2525 April 26, 1949 - MARY BURKE DESBARATS v. TOMAS DE VERA

    083 Phil 382

  • G.R. No. 48676 April 26, 1949 - LEON ORACION v. PACITA JUANILLO

    083 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-793 April 27, 1949 - FELISA R. PAEZ v. FRANCISCO MAGNO

    083 Phil 403

  • G.R. No. L-1259 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: CRISANTO DE BORJA v. JULIANA DE BORJA

    083 Phil 405

  • G.R. No. L-1370 April 27, 1949 - BERNARDA DE VASQUEZ v. ALFONSO DIVA

    083 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-1399 April 27, 1949 - IN RE: GONZALO T. DAVID v. CARLOS M. SISON

    083 Phil 413

  • G.R. No. L-1590 April 27, 1949 - RAYMUNDA SIVA v. FELIXBERTO IMPERIAL REYES

    083 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-1627 April 27, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAMERTO RAMIREZ

    083 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. L-1976 April 27, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARULA

    083 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-2056 April 27, 1949 - SANTIAGO ALERIA v. JUAN MENDOZA

    083 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-2336 April 27, 1949 - ANGELINA CANAYNAY v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    083 Phil 429

  • CA. No. 2592-R April 27, 1949 - SATURNINA ZAPANTA v. VIRGILIO BARTOLOME

    083 Phil 433

  • G.R. No. L-2612 April 27, 1949 - RURAL PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION v. DOMINADOR TEMPOROSA

    083 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-855 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TROADIO BUTAWAN

    083 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. L-1275 April 28, 1949 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. FULGENCIO BUSTILLOS.

    083 Phil 443

  • G.R. No. L-1661 April 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEODORO CANTOS

    083 Phil 446

  • G.R. No. L-1672 April 28, 1949 - IN RE: ZENAIDA JIRO-MORI

    083 Phil 450

  • G.R. No. L-2028 April 28, 1949 - PHIL. SHEET METAL WORKERS’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 453

  • CA. No. 332 April 29, 1949 - CHINA INSURANCE & SURETY COMPANY v. B. K. BERKENKOTTER

    083 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-1650 April 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO MACABUHAY

    083 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-2899 April 29, 1949 - NATIONAL COCONUT CORPORATION v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO

    083 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-150 April 30, 1949 - VICENTE HILADO v. FELIX DE LA COSTA

    083 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. L-1234 April 30, 1949 - VICTORINO FLORO v. SANTIAGO H. GRANADA

    083 Phil 487

  • G.R. No. L-1383 April 30, 1949 - PAZ ESCARELLA DE RALLA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    083 Phil 491

  • G.R. No. L-1523 April 30, 1949 - BIÑAN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. FIDEL IBAÑEZ

    083 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. L-1783 April 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO CARPIO Y ESTACIO

    083 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-1916 April 30, 1949 - PABLO C. SIBULO v. LOPE ALTAR

    083 Phil 513

  • G.R. No. L-2009 April 30, 1949 - SUNRIPE COCONUT PRODUCTS CO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    083 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2122 April 30, 1949 - FAUSTINO BUTER v. TRIBUNAL DE RELACIONES INDUSTRIALES

    083 Phil 526

  • G.R. No. L-46798 April 30, 1949 - PINDANGAN AGRICULTURAL CO., INC. v. ERNEST A. SCHENKEL Y OTRO

    083 Phil 529

  • G.R. No. 49167 April 30, 1949 - CO TAO v. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO

    083 Phil 543

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 48671   April 19, 1949 - EUSEBIO BELVIZ v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA<br /><br />083 Phil 337

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 48671. April 19, 1949.]

    EUSEBIO BELVIZ, Petitioner, v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.

    Isada & Javelona Hilado for Petitioner.

    No appearance for Respondents.

    SYLLABUS


    APPEAL; SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SUSPENDS PERIOD OF APPEAL; PRESUMPTION. — Although the 30-day period for filing an appeal is not interrupted by a motion for reconsideration which is a mere reiteration of a petition to set aside the judgment, or by a second motion containing something new, which existed and could be used or included in the first, where there is nothing in the record which tends to show that the second motion for reconsideration filed is one covered by the restrictions, the presumption is that the said second motion for reconsideration is based on an allowable ground, and this presumption of regularity is confirmed by the granting of the motion by the trial court. In that case, the second motion for reconsideration suspend the running of the period for appeal from the date of its filing.


    D E C I S I O N


    PARAS, J.:


    This is a reconstituted case. It appears from the present record that in civil case No. 2055 of the Court of First Instance of Capiz, an order was entered on April 8, 1941, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Por la presente, se desaprueba el proyecto de particion sometido por el administrador, y en su lugar se aprueba el Contra-proyecto de particion presentado por el abogado Sr. Antonio J. Beldia de fecha 26 de diciembre de 1940 en todas sus partes, y se ordena al administrador que entregue inmediatamente a los herederos la porcion de bienes que corresponde a cada uno de los herederos segun el contra proyecto de particion, debiendo registrar en el expediente los recibos acreditativos sobre dicha entrega dentro del plazo de cinco dias despues de haber recibido copia de esta orden, entendiendose que esta particion esta sujeto sobre el resultado de los terrenos controvertidos en catastro entre el intestado y de los herederos de Gregorio Ortiz, pendiente ante este Juzgado."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On April 14, 1941, a motion for reconsideration was filed by Atty. Jose Y. Torres which motion was denied by an order dated May 3, 1941, reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "En conjunto a la mocion de reconsideracion de fecha abril 14, 1941, presentado por el abogado Torres, el Juzgado no la encuentra justificada para reconsiderar el auto del Juzgado aprobando el Contra proyecto de particion presentado por el abogado Sr. Antonio J. Beldia, aparte de que antes de probarse dicho contra proyecto de particion se los habia dado oportunidad a los opositores a formular sus objecciones, las cuales son sustancialmente las mismas que se alegaron por el abogado Jose Ortiz Barrios que comparecio al someterse esta mocion de reconsideracion, si bien el abogado Torres solo se limito entonces a presentar una oposicion de formula. Se deniega, por tanto, la mocion de reconsideracion del abogado Torres."cralaw virtua1aw library

    On May 26, 1941, a second motion for reconsideration was filed by the same attorney which was granted by the respondent Judge in his order of July 21, 1941, the pertinent portions of which read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "De los hechos expuestos, se ve que algunos de los lotes o partes de los mismos distribuidos en ambos proyectos de particion son objectos de reclamaciones de varias personas cuya vista habia terminado, y hoy pendiente de decision. Es necesario que el titulo sobre los lotes contenidos en el expediente catastral sea primero resuelto antes de que el juzgado haga distribucion de las propiedades de este intestado.

    "Por tanto, confirmando la orden verbal del Juzgado en Corte Abierta se deja sin efecto la orden de fecha 8 de abril de 1941, aprobando el contra-proyecto de particion presentado por el abogado Beldia."cralaw virtua1aw library

    It is contended by the petitioner that the order of the respondent Judge of July 21, 1941, was in excess of his jurisdiction on the ground that the order of April 8, 1941, had become final, the second motion for reconsideration not having suspended the period for appeal.

    Although the 30-day period for filing an appeal is not interrupted by a motion for reconsideration which is a mere reiteration of a petition to set aside the judgment (Federal Films, Inc. v. Judge of First Instance of Manila 78 Phil., 472), or by a second motion containing something new, which existed and could be used or included in the first (Perez v. Ysip, 81 Phil., 218), there is nothing in the record before us which tends to show that the second motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Jose Y. Torres on May 26, 1941, is one covered by the restrictions. The presumption, therefore, is that the said second motion for reconsideration was based on an allowable ground, and this presumption of regularity is confirmed by the granting of the motion by the respondent Judge. If so, the second motion for reconsideration suspended the running of the period for appeal from the date of its filing on May 26, 1941 to July 21, 1941, when the same was acted upon and granted by the respondent Judge. There can be no doubt that it was filed within the period of 30 days from April 8, 1941, after deducting the time during which the first motion for reconsideration filed on April 14, 1941, was pending, since April 8 to 14, and from May 3 to May 26, only 29 days had elapsed. (Rule of Court 37, sec. 4.)

    Wherefore, the petition for certiorari will be as the same is hereby dismissed, without costs.

    Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason, Briones, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. 48671   April 19, 1949 - EUSEBIO BELVIZ v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA<br /><br />083 Phil 337


    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