Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1955 > July 1955 Decisions > G.R. No. L-7483 July 25, 1955 - PEDRO CUETO v. BLANCA COLLANTES, ET AL.

097 Phil 325:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-7483. July 25, 1955.]

PEDRO CUETO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BLANCA COLLANTES, CHIU CHO alias ATOY and JOSE CONTRERAS, Defendants-Appellants.

Nicetas A. Suanes for Appellee.

Ramon Imperial for appellants.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL AND ERROR; APPEAL FROM COURT OF APPEALS TO SUPREME COURT; HOW MADE. — Once a decision is rendered by the Court of Appeals a party may appeal therefrom by certiorari by filing with the Supreme Court a petition within 10 days from the date of entry of such decision (Section 1, Rule 46).

2. JUDGMENT; PERIOD OF RIGHT OF REDEMPTION; FINALITY AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT; SUSPENDED ON FILING PETITION FOR REVIEW. — The entry of judgment is made after it has became final, i.e., upon the expiration of 15 days after notice thereof to the parties (Section 8, Rule 53, as modified by a resolution of the Supreme Court dated October 1, 1945). But, as Chief Justice Moran has said, "such finality . . . is subject to the aggrieved party’s right of filing petition for certiorari under this section", which means that "the Court of Appeals shall remand the case to the lower court for the execution of its judgment, only after the judgment, if no petition for certiorari is filed within that period. it would therefore appear that the entry of the judgment of the Court of Appeals is suspended when a petition for review is filed to await the final entry of the resolution or decision of the Supreme Court.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; WHEN PERIOD OF REDEMPTION COMMENCE TO RUN. — Where the appellee has filed a petition for review within the reglementary period, which was dismissed by resolution of July 6, 1953, and for lack of a motion for reconsideration the entry of final judgment was made on August 7, 1953, it follow that the 90-day period of redemption should be counted from the said, August 7, 1953. And appellee having exercised such right on October 17, 1953 by depositing the redemption money with the clerk of court, it is likewise clear that the motion he filed for the exercise of such right is well taken and is within the purview of the decision of the lower court.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


On February 17, 1951 the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur rendered a judgment in Civil Case No. R-90 (1) declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to repurchase the lands in litigation within the period of ninety days "from the time this judgment shall become final, otherwise the right shall be lost forever" ; and (2) ordering the plaintiff to deliver to defendant Blanca Collantes 20 cavanes of palay a year beginning 1945 until he shall have effected the repurchase or until he delivers the lands, and to deliver to defendant Chiu Cho 38 1/2 cavanes of palay for the year 1945 and thereafter at the rate of 200 cavanes a year until plaintiff pays the repurchase price or until he delivers the land.

Plaintiff having appealed from this decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the same with a slight modification with regard to the amount of the counterclaim adjudicated to defendant Chiu Cho, said amount having been reduced from P2,042.01 to P2,034.01. This judgment was finally entered by the clerk of court on July 8, 1953. On June 29, 1953, plaintiff filed a petition for review by certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the latter in a resolution dated July 16, 1953. Copy of this resolution was received by plaintiff’s counsel on July 22, 1953. Plaintiff not having filed a motion for reconsideration, the clerk of court made the entry of final judgment on August 7, 1953.

In the meantime, Pedro Cueto, the plaintiff, assigned his right to repurchase to his brother Lucilo Cueto and, on October 17, 1953, after the record of the case had been remanded to the trial court, the two brothers, Pedro and Lucilo, deposited with the clerk of court the redemption price in the amount of P4,656.60 and filed with the court a joint motion praying that the defendants be required to execute the deed of reconveyance of the lands and to deliver the certificate of title covering the same with the request that, should they fail to do so within the period to be fixed by the court, the Register of Deeds be authorized to issue a new certificate of title and, thereafter, execute the deed of reconveyance as required in the original decision.

This motion was opposed by the defendants on the main ground that the attempt made by the plaintiff to exercise his right of redemption was made beyond the 90-day period from the entry of final judgment of the Court of Appeals contrary to the decision of the court of origin. But the court overruled this opposition and granted the motion in an order entered on October 30, 1953. This is the order which is now the subject of the present appeal.

The only error assigned by appellants refers to the finding of the lower court that plaintiff can still exercise his right of redemption notwithstanding the expiration of the 90-day period fixed in the original decision and, therefore, defendants should execute the deed of reconveyance required in said decision. Appellants contend that, the final judgment of the Court of Appeals having been entered on July 8, 1953, the 90-day period for the exercise of the right of redemption has long expired, it appearing that plaintiff deposited the redemption money with the clerk of court only on October 17, 1953, or after the expiration of 101 days. Appellee brands this computation as erroneous, or one not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the rules of court.

Appellee’s contention should be sustained. The original decision provides that appellee may exercise his right of redemption within the period of 90 days from the date the judgment has become final. It should be noted that appellee has appealed from this decision. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and final judgment was entered on July 8, 1953. Does this mean that the judgment became final on that date?

Let us make a little digression for purposes of clarification. Once a decision is rendered by the Court of Appeals a party may appeal therefrom by certiorari by filing with the Supreme Court a petition within 10 days from the date of entry of such decision (Section 1, Rule 46). The entry of judgment is made after it has become final, i.e., upon the expiration of 15 days after notice thereof to the parties (Section 8, Rule 53, as modified by a resolution of the Supreme Court dated October 1, 1945). But, as Chief Justice Moran has said, "such finality . . . is subject to the aggrieved party’s right of filing a petition for certiorari under this section", which means that "the Court of Appeals shall remand the case to the lower court for the execution of its judgment, only after the expiration of ten (10) days from the date of entry of such judgment, if no petition for certiorari is filed within that period." (1 Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1952 ed., p. 950.) It would therefore appear that the date of entry of the judgment of the Court of Appeals is suspended when a petition for review is filed to await the final entry of the resolution or decision of the Supreme Court.

Since in the present case appellee has filed a petition for review within the reglementary period, which was dismissed by resolution of July 6, 1953, and for lack of a motion for reconsideration the entry of final judgment was made on August 7, 1953, it follows that the 90-day period within which appellee may exercise his right of redemption should be counted from said date, August 7, 1953. And appellee having exercised such right on October 17, 1953 by depositing the redemption money with the clerk of court, it is likewise clear that the motion be filed for the exercise of such right is well taken and is within the purview of the decision of the lower court.

The fact that such right was assigned by appellee to his brother Lucilo is of no moment for there is nothing in the record to show that the same was done to the prejudice of appellants.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs against appellants.

Bengzon, Acting C.J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Labrador, Concepcion and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





July-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-6420 July 18, 1955 - INS. CO. OF NORTH AMERICA v. PHIL. PORTS TERMINALS, INC.

    097 Phil 288

  • G.R. No. L-8062 July 18, 1955 - JOSE QUINTOS v. HON. ARSENIO H. LACSON, ET AL.

    097 Phil 290

  • G.R. No. L-7349 July 19, 1955 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSN. v. ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC.

    097 Phil 294

  • G.R. No. L-6846 July 20, 1955 - GREGORIO ARANETA EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL. v. ARSENIO C. ROLDAN, ET AL.

    097 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. L-7425 July 21, 1955 - DAVID M. ALMEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-6648 July 25, 1955 - VICTORIAS PLANTERS ASSN., INC., ET AL. v. VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC.

    097 Phil 318

  • G.R. No. L-7483 July 25, 1955 - PEDRO CUETO v. BLANCA COLLANTES, ET AL.

    097 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-7635 July 25, 1955 - TASIANA ONGSINGCO v. HON. BIENVENIDO A. TAN, ET AL.

    097 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-8129 July 25, 1955 - VALERIANO NICOLAS, ET AL. v. HON. MODESTO CASTILLO, ET AL.

    097 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. L-6641 July 28, 1955 - FRANCISCO QUIZON v. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF PAMPANGA, ET AL.

    097 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. L-6582 July 29, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ

    097 Phil 349

  • G.R. No. L-5974 July 30, 1955 - MARIA ELIZABETH KIENE, ET AL. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    097 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. L-6749 July 30, 1955 - JEAN L. ARNAULT v. EUSTAQUIO BALAGTAS

    097 Phil 358

  • G.R. No. L-7077 July 30, 1955 - ANTONIO DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. CARLOS SANDICO, ET AL.

    097 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. L-7905 July 30, 1955 - SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION AND SAMBELA

    097 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-7915 July 30, 1955 - IN RE: ALFREDO M. VELAYO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS.

    097 Phil 387

  • G.R. No. L-9043 July 30, 1955 - DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, ET AL. v. HON. JOSE TEODORO, ET AL.

    097 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-9050 July 30, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN L. BOCAR, ET AL.

    097 Phil 398