Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1915 > November 1915 Decisions > G.R. No. 10659 November 11, 1915 - MACARIO LAVITORIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS, ET AL.

032 Phil 204:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 10659. November 11, 1915. ]

MACARIO LAVITORIA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. THE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS and THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS on behalf of the Government of the Philippine Islands, Respondents.

Reyes & Millar, for Petitioners.

Attorney-General Avanceña for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. PROHIBITION TO RESTRAIN COURT FROM GRANTING NEW TRIAI. — Parties have a right to be present at the trial of their causes, either by themselves or their attorneys. They are also entitled to reasonable notice of the time fixed for the trial. If the court discovers that either of the parties to the action has not been notified of the time of the trial, he may, on his own motion, grant a new trial, and his order, in such a case, is not beyond his jurisdiction.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


This is an action of prohibition. It is an original action in the Supreme Court. It was commenced on or about the 1st of March, 1915. Its purpose was to secure an order prohibiting the respondents from proceeding with the hear- ing of a certain cause pending in the Court of Land Registration. The facts, as they appear from the record, are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That on or about the 11th of August, 1913, Charles H. Sleeper, as Director of Lands, presented a petition in the Court of Land Registration, in representation of the Government of the Philippine Islands, for the purpose of registering a certain parcel or parcels of land, composed of about 300 hectares, located in the municipality of Candelaria, Province of Tayabas, in accordance with the provisions of section 61 of Act No. 926. (See Exhibit A.)

Second. That on the 2d of March, 1914, the Attorney-General presented exactly the same petition which had theretofore been presented by the Director of Lands. (Exhibit B.) No reason appears of record why the second petition was presented.

Third. That on the 21st of September, 1914, after said cause had been transferred from the Court of Land Registration to the Court of First Instance of the Province of Tayabas, by virtue of Act No. 2347, of July 1st, 1914, the clerk of said court issued a notice to the Director of Lands, in accordance with section 20 of said Act, notifying said Director that said cause had been set down for hearing in the municipality of Lucena, on the 23d of November, 1914, at eight o’clock a. m. (Exhibit C.)

Fourth. That on the 26th of September, 1914, the general notice required by the Land Registration Law was issued by the chief clerk of the General Land Registration Office notifying all persons that said cause had been set down for hearing at 8 o’clock a. m. on the 23d of November, 1914 (Exhibit D.)

Fifth. That on the 17th of October, 1914, the sheriff of the Province of Tayabas certified that he had, on the 14th of October, 1914, caused a certified copy of the notice to all the parties to be posted in a conspicuous place on each parcel of the land in question, as well as in a conspicuous place on the chief municipal building of the said municipality of Candelaria. (Exhibit E.)

Sixth. That on the 27th of October, 1914, the chief of the General Land Registration Office under the torrens system, presented a certificate that he had duly complied with the provisions of section 32 of Act No. 496. (Exhibit F.)

Seventh. That on the 2d of October, 1914, a number of persons, through their attorneys, Reyes & Millar, presented an answer to the petition originally presented and described in paragraph 1 above, alleging that they were the only and absolute owners, in common, of the property described in said petition, and that no other person had any right or legitimate interest in the same. (Exhibit G.)

Eighth. That on the 23d of November, 1914, at 8 o’clock a. m., the Honorable Isidro Paredes, judge, entered an order of general default against all persons who had not appeared on said date. According to said order the only persons who had appeared were Gregorio Suaverdes, Florentino Vensuela, Abdon Romulo, Cornelio de Guzman, Espiridion Dune, Macario Lavitoria, Regino Lavitoria, Bernarda Lavitoria, Vidal Lavitoria, Ariston Lavarro, Sofia Lavarro, Isidro Labares. (See Exhibit H.)

Ninth. That on the 1st of December, 1914, the Honorable Isidro Paredes, judge, after hearing the respective parties, rendered a decision in which he ordered said parcel of land to be registered in favor of Macario Lavitoria, Regina Lavitoria, Bernarda Lavitoria, Vidal Lavitoria, Ariston Lavarro, Sofia Lavarro, and Isidro Labares. (Exhibit I.)

Tenth. That on the 8th of December, 1914, the Honorable Ramon Avanceña, Attorney-General, presented a motion for a new trial, and asked that the decision of December 1st, 1914, be declared to be without effect. Said motion was based upon the fact that neither the Attorney-General nor the Director of Lands had received notice of the date fixed for the trial of said cause. (Exhibit J.)

Eleventh. Said motion of the Attorney-General was brought on for hearing and granted by the Honorable Isidro Paredes, upon the 7th of January, 1915. (Exhibit L.)

Twelfth. On the same day and within one half hour after the decision granting the new trial mentioned in paragraph 11, the attorneys for the respondents presented a verbal request for a reconsideration of said order granting the new trial, which verbal request for a reconsideration was denied upon the 7th of January, 1915. (Exhibit LL.)

By reference to the above facts, it will be noted:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First. That the decision of the lower court was rendered on the 1st of December, 1914.

Second. That the motion for a new trial by the Attorney-General was made on the 8th of December, 1914.

Third. That said motion was based upon the fact that neither the Attorney-General nor the Director of Lands had received notice of the trial of the cause.

Fourth. That said motion of the Attorney-General was considered and granted upon the 7th of January, 1915.

The petitioners herein now asked that the lower court be prohibited from proceeding with the new trial in said cause, for the reason that the court was without jurisdiction to consider and decide the motion for a new trial, or to grant a new trial, after the expiration of thirty days from the notification of the decision.

Evidently the petitioners have not read the record of the court below nor the exhibits which they themselves present. Exhibit I (the decision of the lower court) shows that the decision of the lower court was rendered on the 1st of December, 1914, while the motion for a new trial was made by the Attorney-General seven days thereafter, or upon the 8th of December, 1914. The thirty days therefore concerning which the petitioners complain, had not passed. It is true that the judge did not pass upon said motion for a new trial until the 7th of January, 1915. While it is true that more than thirty days elapsed from the date of the decision of the court until the decision on the motion for a new trial, yet, nevertheless, we have decided in numerous cases that the time during which the court considers a motion for a new trial is not counted nor included in the time within which a decision of the Court of First Instance becomes final. Therefore the time during which the court was considering the motion for a new trial, from December 8, 1914, to January 7, 1915, must be eliminated from the time within which the decision of the lower court would otherwise be- come final. (Garcia v. Ambler and-Sweeney, 4 Phil. Rep., 81; De la Cruz v. Garcia, 4 Phil. Rep., 680; Santos v. Villafuerte, 5 Phil. Rep., 739; Paez v. Berenguer, 6 Phil. Rep., 521.) The rule that the time during which the judge is considering a motion for a new trial shall not count against the time within which the judgment shall become final has been specifically applied to decisions in the Court of Land Registration, notwithstanding the provisions of Act No. 1484. (Paez v. Berenguer, supra.) In view of the fact that the motion was presented within time and before the decision became final, the court had jurisdiction and, having jurisdiction to consider said motion, the present application must be denied.

Parties have a right to be present at the trial of their causes, either by themselves or by their attorneys. They are also entitled to reasonable notice of the time fixed for the trial. If the court discovers that either of the parties to the action has not been notified of the trial, he may, on his own motion, grant a new trial. (Muerteguy & Aboitiz v. Delgado, 22 Phil. Rep., 109.)

The record fully discloses facts sufficient to justify the lower court in the exercise of its lawful powers in granting a new trial in the present ease. The demurrer is therefore hereby sustained and the petitioners are hereby given ten days within which to amend their petition, if they so desire. If an amended petition is not so presented, then let an order be entered denying the remedy prayed for, with costs. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, Moreland and Araullo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1915 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 9930 November 2, 1915 - FELIPE YANGO v. BARTOLOME ROMERO

    032 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. 10119 November 4, 1915 - MARIANO SEVERO P. TUASON v. MUNICIPALITY OF MARIQUINA

    032 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 10157 November 4, 1915 - E. C. MCCULLOUGH & GO. v. LUCENA ELECTRIC LIGHT

    032 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 10214 November 4, 1915 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. 10670 November 4, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. LI SUI WUN

    032 Phil 151

  • G.R. No. 10935 November 4, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. CASIMIRO E. VELAZQUEZ

    032 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 9963 November 5, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIA NEBRIDA,, ET AL.

    032 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 10174 November 5, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERINO PEREZ, ET AL.

    032 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 10012 November 9, 1915 - WALTER EASTON v. E. DIAZ & COMPANY, ET AL.

    032 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 10419 November 10, 1915 - FELIX LAUREANO v. EUGENIO KILAYCO, ET AL.

    032 Phil 194

  • G.R. No. 10533 November 11, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. DIONISIO ENRIQUEZ

    032 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 10659 November 11, 1915 - MACARIO LAVITORIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS, ET AL.

    032 Phil 204

  • G.R. No. 9749 November 13, 1915 - MERCEDES CHINCHILLA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO GONZALEZ, ET AL.

    032 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 10027 November 13, 1915 - ROSENDO E. HERNAEZ v. MATEO E. HERNAEZ

    032 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. 10615 November 16, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO ZAMORA

    032 Phil 218

  • G.R. No. 9235 November 17, 1915 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, . v. STEAMSHIP "RUBI

    032 Phil 228

  • G.R. No. 8788 November 19, 1915 - ESTEBAN GASATAYA v. CHARLES J. FALLON

    032 Phil 245

  • G.R. No. 10240 November 20, 1915 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    032 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. 10476 November 20, 1915 - OSADA CARR v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION

    032 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 9105 November 22, 1915 - IN RE: APOLONIA REMIGIO v. SANTIAGO ORTIGA

    033 Phil 614

  • G.R. No. 9976 November 22, 1915 - OQUIÑENA & COMPANY v. JOSE MUERTEGUI, ET AL.

    032 Phil 261

  • G.R. No. 10113 November 22, 1915 - ROMULO MERCADO v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    032 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 10106 November 23, 1915 - ANTONIO DE LA RIVA v. RAFAEL MOLINA SALVADOR

    032 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 10278 November 23, 1915 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. ROMANA VELASQUEZ, ET AL.

    032 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. 10093 November 24, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. LAZARO EVANGELISTA, ET AL.

    032 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 10185 November 24, 1915 - ANGEL GONZALEZ v. JEREMIAS J. HARTY, ET AL.

    032 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 11043 November 26, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. DORICA MANZANO, ET AL.

    032 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 8873 November 29, 1915 - FLORA INSON v. AGUSTIN BELZUNCE

    032 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 10362 November 29, 1915 - UNITED STATES v. LEON DIANA

    032 Phil 344

  • G.R. No. 8242 November 30, 1915 - GREGORIO P. ACANTILADO v. MARCELINO DE SANTOS

    032 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 10402 November 30, 1915 - A. BUCHANAN v. PILAR A., VIUDA DE ESTEBAN

    032 Phil 363