SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. 21387           September 19, 1924
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. TESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED ANTONIA DE LA CRUZ -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. 21387           September 19, 1924

THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, applicant, vs. THE TESTATE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED ANTONIA DE LA CRUZ, claimant-appellant, and
ABDON GOMEZ, claimant-appellee.

Prudencio A. Remigio for appellant.
Palma & Leuterio for appellee.

ROMUALDEZ, J.:

On November 27, 1922, judgment was rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila concerning lots, 2, 3, 8 and 10 of this cadastral proceeding claimed by the estate of Antonia Cruz y Bautista on the one hand, and by Abdon Gomez, on the other, adjudicating lots Nos. 2, 8, and 10 to the spouses Patricio de los Reyes and Antonia Gomez Quijano y Reyes.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On December 18, 1922, these parties entered into an agreement in writing as to lots 2, 8, and 10, which was filed and contained a statement as follows: "Without prejudice to the claim of both parties being decided later on as to lot 3" (pp. 13 and 14, bill of exceptions).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Upon said agreement as to lots 2, 8, and 10, the court, in an order dated December 19, 1922, set aside the judgment concerning said lots, but said nothing as to lot 3.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On April 16, 1923, Luisa Reyes, administratrix of the estate of Antonia de la Cruz y Bautista, moved to set aside the judgment as to lot 3, on the ground that she had not had an opportunity to present evidence as to said lot. This was opposed by Abdon Gomez.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

These motions were denied by the trial court on April 28, 1923, on the ground that the judgment on November 27,1922, was entered after said Luisa Reyes had submitted the case for decision in a motion dated July 7, 1922 (p. 7, bill of exceptions).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On July 25, 1923, Luisa Reyes excepted to the judgment of November 27, 1922, and the order of April 28, 1923.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On the same date, July 25, 1923, Luisa Reyes petitioned the court that the certificate of title issued over lot No. 3 to be cancelled, and at the same time moved for a new trial which was denied on August 2, 1923, an exception in writing have been taken to said ruling on August 11,1923, and application made for the reconsideration of the order of August 2, 1923, to which an opposition was entered by Abdon Gomez on August 21, 1923.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The motion for reconsideration was denied on August 25, 1923, Luisa Reyes having excepted thereto on September 7, 1923.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It appears from the record that the motions to set aside the judgment of November 27, 1922, were properly denied.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Said judgment became final and was acquiesced in. While the parties attempted to suspend the effect of said judgment through the agreement of December 18, 1922, the fact is that the order of the court of December 19,1922, set aside the judgment having been left unchanged as to lot No. 3. On that date at least, - December 18, 1923, - the period began to run, until the judgment became final and unappealable and the court lost its jurisdiction to alter said judgment. For this reason, it was no error to deny the motion of Luisa Reyes filed April 16, 1923, more than three months from the entry of the order of December 19, 1922, and more than four months from that of the judgment of November 27, 1922. For the same reason, it was no error to deny the subsequent motions filed by said Luisa Reyes.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Therefore, there is no merit in the third, fourth, sixth and seventh assignments of error made by the appellant. As to the first and fifth errors, it has already been intimated that they are groundless. These assignment of error are refuted in appellant's motion of July 7, 1922 (p. 7, bill of exceptions).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

As to the second assignment of error, concerning the judgment in case No. 18889, it appears that said judgment, copy of which was filed and attached to the original record of this case on folio 26, does not include, nor refer, to lot 3 here in dispute. This error is, therefore, of no merit.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The judgment and orders appealed from are affirmed with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, and Ostrand, JJ., concur.