SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. Nos. L-44233,L-44234 and L-44235 May 15, 1981

JOSE LEGARDA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and ITS PRESIDING JUSTICE, Respondents.

AQUINO, J.:

This is a mandamus action filed on July 29, 1976 by Jose Legarda to compel the Court of Appeals or its Presiding Justice to sign and issue certifications of affirmance by that Court of certain orders of the Court of First Instance of Manila in the testamentary proceeding for the estate of his mother, the late Filomena Races de Legarda (Special Proceedings No. 70878).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Those orders were appealed to the Court of Appeals and were allegedly not decided within twelve months from their submission, as required in section 11, Article X of the Constitution.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The appeals, which were docketed as (I) CA-G.R. No. 43480R, (2) CA-G.R. No. 51222-R and (3) CA-G.R. No. 53355-R, were submitted for decision on April 5, 1973 . July 19, 1974 and July 5, 1974, respectively.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On August 9, 1976, the petitioner filed a manifestation stating that on August 2, 1976 he was served with a copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 43480-R. Legarda vs. Gonzales, dated July 30, 1976. He prayed that the supervening fact be taken into account in the resolution of his petition.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The heirs of Filomena Races Vda. de Legarda filed their comments on the petition. Beatriz Legarda de Gonzalez prayed for its dismissal considering that it was not alleged therein that the Court of Appeals failed to render the decision within the twelve- month period "because the necessary vote could not be had".chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Petitioner's children named Alejandro, Filomena, Antonia, Jose, Jr., Celso, Eduardo, Rosario and Benito all surnamed Legarda y Lobregat expressed their conformity with the petition.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Also in conformity with the petition were Carmen Legarda y Fernandez, Trinidad F. Legarda, Benito Legarda, Jr., Teresa Legarda, Doctor Alejandro Legarda and his children and Rosario M. Llora.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Through its judicial officer, the Court of Appeals took the stand that the provision requiring it to decide cases within twelve months from the date of submission is "merely directory". lt prayed for the dismissal of the petition.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On December 5, 1980, the petitioner filed a manifestation stating that his petition herein has become moot and academic because the Court of Appeals decided CA-G.R. No. 51222-R and CA-G.R. No. 53355-R on October 30 and November 12, 1980, respectively. As earlier noted, the third case covered by the petition, CA-G.R. No. 43480-R, was decided by the Court of Appeals in 1976.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed and this case is considered closed.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.