Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > October 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 2651 October 27, 1905 - MACARIO CASTRO v. CARMEN CASTRO

005 Phil 180:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 2651. October 27, 1905. ]

MACARIO CASTRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARMEN CASTRO, Defendant-Appellee.

W.A. Kincaid, for Appellant.

Coudert Brothers, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. APPEAL; VERBAL EXCEPTIONS TO JUDGMENT OF INFERIOR COURT. — The law does not require that an exception made to a judgment of the Court of First Instance be made in writing; a verbal exception is sufficient. Neither does the law require a written notice of an intention to present a bill of exceptions. A verbal announcement of such intention is sufficient. Act No. 1123 of the Philippine Commission made no change whatever in the method of preparing bills of exception in Courts of First Instance. Said act did, however, make two changes in the practice after the bill of exceptions had been signed in the court below. Under the former law it was the duty of the clerk to make a copy of the bill of exceptions and send that to the clerk of his court. Under this act it is the duty of the clerk to send up the original bill of exceptions. The old law provided that bills of exception should be printed. The new act further provided that the evidence contained in a bill of exceptions shall not be printed.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


This is a proceeding under section 499 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions.

The judge in his return states that the judgment in question was rendered on the 15th day of February, 1905, in favor of the defendant against the plaintiff and that the lawyer for the plaintiff verbally excepted to the judgment on the same day when notified of it. This verbal exception was sufficient as there is no provision of law which requires such an exception to be in writing.

He also states that counsel for the plaintiff verbally announced his intention to present a bill of exceptions. This verbal announcement was also sufficient, for there is no law requires that announcement to be in writing.

The court also states that this verbal announcement was not made within ten days after the exception was taken to the judgment. The law does not require this act to be done within ten days, but, on the contrary, provides that it shall be done as soon as practicable.

In reference to the application of Act No. 1123, it is evident that the court was led into error by the circular issued by the clerk of this court on the 14th day of June, 1904.

Act No. 1123 made no change whatever in the method of preparing bills of exceptions in Courts of First Instance. Bills of exceptions should be prepared in the same way now as they were before the passage of that act. It did, however, make two changes in the practice after the bill of exceptions had been signed, allowed and filed in the court below. Under the former law it was the duty of the clerk to make a copy of the bill of exceptions and send that to the clerk of this court. Under this act it is the duty of the clerk to send up the original bill of exceptions. The other change was in the matter of printing the bill of exceptions. The former law provided that the bill of exceptions should be printed. Act No. 1123 provides that the evidence contained in the bill of exceptions shall not be printed. These were the only changes made by the law. It is still necessary for the party preparing the bill of exceptions to include in it the evidence received in the court below if he has made a motion for a new trial and desires to have the evidence reviewed in this court.

The bill of exceptions presented in this case was prepared in the proper form.

We hold that the reasons given by the court below for his refusal to sign the bill of exceptions are insufficient. The order provided for by section 499 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions will be issued. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Willard, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





October-1905 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2123 October 3, 1905 - VICENTA NERY LIM-CHINGCO v. CRISANTA TERARIRAY, ET AL.

    005 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 2124 October 7, 1905 - SIMEON DU-YUNGCO v. MACARIO BARRERA

    005 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 2137 October 9, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO BALUYUT

    005 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. 1273 October 10, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO VARGAS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 1700 October 12, 1905 - MIGUEL PICCIO ARANETA v. JOSE GARRIDO

    005 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. 1962 October 12, 1905 - JOSE PINEDA, ET AL. v. GABINO GASATAYA

    005 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 2054 October 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MATIAS BUNAGAN

    005 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 2091 October 18, 1905 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS v. SEBASTIAN VICTOR MOLINA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 2238 October 19, 1905 - LEONCIA LIUANAG v. YU-SON-QUIAN

    005 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 2284 October 20, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE PARAISO

    005 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 2631 November 18, 1905 - EDWIN H. WARNER v. 771 OBJECTORS

    005 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 2631 October 21, 1905 - EDWIN H. WARNER v. 771 OBJECTORS

    005 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 1847 October 23, 1905 - VIDAL CAUSIN v. DIONISIO JAKOSALEM

    005 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 2536 October 23, 1905 - SILVINA LEGASPI v. JOHN C. SWEENEY

    005 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 1442 October 24, 1905 - JOSE REGALADO v. MARIA GONZAGA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. 1750 October 26, 1905 - GUILLERMO BAXTER, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO ZUAZUA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 1923 October 26, 1905 - IGNACIO DE ICAZA, ET AL. v. MATEO O. PEREZ

    005 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. 2346 October 26, 1905 - ALBINO SANTOS, ET AL. v. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO

    005 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 1403 October 27, 1905 - JOSE E. ALEMANY, ET AL. v. JUANA MORENO

    005 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 2599 October 27, 1905 - CARMEN P. LINART v. MARIA JUANA I. UGARTE

    005 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 2651 October 27, 1905 - MACARIO CASTRO v. CARMEN CASTRO

    005 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 1595 October 28, 1905 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. JUANA VALENCIA

    005 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. 2353 October 28, 1905 - ZOILO GARCIA VASQUEZ v. P.B. FLORENCE

    005 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 2945 October 28, 1905 - B.H. MACKE, ET AL. v. JOSE CAMPS

    005 Phil 185