April 1949 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1949 > April 1949 Decisions >
G.R. No. 48671 April 19, 1949 - EUSEBIO BELVIZ v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA
083 Phil 337:
083 Phil 337:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 48671. April 19, 1949.]
EUSEBIO BELVIZ, Petitioner, v. CATALINO BUENAVENTURA, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.
Isada & Javelona Hilado for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondents.
SYLLABUS
APPEAL; SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SUSPENDS PERIOD OF APPEAL; PRESUMPTION. — Although the 30-day period for filing an appeal is not interrupted by a motion for reconsideration which is a mere reiteration of a petition to set aside the judgment, or by a second motion containing something new, which existed and could be used or included in the first, where there is nothing in the record which tends to show that the second motion for reconsideration filed is one covered by the restrictions, the presumption is that the said second motion for reconsideration is based on an allowable ground, and this presumption of regularity is confirmed by the granting of the motion by the trial court. In that case, the second motion for reconsideration suspend the running of the period for appeal from the date of its filing.
D E C I S I O N
PARAS, J.:
This is a reconstituted case. It appears from the present record that in civil case No. 2055 of the Court of First Instance of Capiz, an order was entered on April 8, 1941, the dispositive part of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Por la presente, se desaprueba el proyecto de particion sometido por el administrador, y en su lugar se aprueba el Contra-proyecto de particion presentado por el abogado Sr. Antonio J. Beldia de fecha 26 de diciembre de 1940 en todas sus partes, y se ordena al administrador que entregue inmediatamente a los herederos la porcion de bienes que corresponde a cada uno de los herederos segun el contra proyecto de particion, debiendo registrar en el expediente los recibos acreditativos sobre dicha entrega dentro del plazo de cinco dias despues de haber recibido copia de esta orden, entendiendose que esta particion esta sujeto sobre el resultado de los terrenos controvertidos en catastro entre el intestado y de los herederos de Gregorio Ortiz, pendiente ante este Juzgado."cralaw virtua1aw library
On April 14, 1941, a motion for reconsideration was filed by Atty. Jose Y. Torres which motion was denied by an order dated May 3, 1941, reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"En conjunto a la mocion de reconsideracion de fecha abril 14, 1941, presentado por el abogado Torres, el Juzgado no la encuentra justificada para reconsiderar el auto del Juzgado aprobando el Contra proyecto de particion presentado por el abogado Sr. Antonio J. Beldia, aparte de que antes de probarse dicho contra proyecto de particion se los habia dado oportunidad a los opositores a formular sus objecciones, las cuales son sustancialmente las mismas que se alegaron por el abogado Jose Ortiz Barrios que comparecio al someterse esta mocion de reconsideracion, si bien el abogado Torres solo se limito entonces a presentar una oposicion de formula. Se deniega, por tanto, la mocion de reconsideracion del abogado Torres."cralaw virtua1aw library
On May 26, 1941, a second motion for reconsideration was filed by the same attorney which was granted by the respondent Judge in his order of July 21, 1941, the pertinent portions of which read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"De los hechos expuestos, se ve que algunos de los lotes o partes de los mismos distribuidos en ambos proyectos de particion son objectos de reclamaciones de varias personas cuya vista habia terminado, y hoy pendiente de decision. Es necesario que el titulo sobre los lotes contenidos en el expediente catastral sea primero resuelto antes de que el juzgado haga distribucion de las propiedades de este intestado.
"Por tanto, confirmando la orden verbal del Juzgado en Corte Abierta se deja sin efecto la orden de fecha 8 de abril de 1941, aprobando el contra-proyecto de particion presentado por el abogado Beldia."cralaw virtua1aw library
It is contended by the petitioner that the order of the respondent Judge of July 21, 1941, was in excess of his jurisdiction on the ground that the order of April 8, 1941, had become final, the second motion for reconsideration not having suspended the period for appeal.
Although the 30-day period for filing an appeal is not interrupted by a motion for reconsideration which is a mere reiteration of a petition to set aside the judgment (Federal Films, Inc. v. Judge of First Instance of Manila 78 Phil., 472), or by a second motion containing something new, which existed and could be used or included in the first (Perez v. Ysip, 81 Phil., 218), there is nothing in the record before us which tends to show that the second motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Jose Y. Torres on May 26, 1941, is one covered by the restrictions. The presumption, therefore, is that the said second motion for reconsideration was based on an allowable ground, and this presumption of regularity is confirmed by the granting of the motion by the respondent Judge. If so, the second motion for reconsideration suspended the running of the period for appeal from the date of its filing on May 26, 1941 to July 21, 1941, when the same was acted upon and granted by the respondent Judge. There can be no doubt that it was filed within the period of 30 days from April 8, 1941, after deducting the time during which the first motion for reconsideration filed on April 14, 1941, was pending, since April 8 to 14, and from May 3 to May 26, only 29 days had elapsed. (Rule of Court 37, sec. 4.)
Wherefore, the petition for certiorari will be as the same is hereby dismissed, without costs.
Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason, Briones, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.
"Por la presente, se desaprueba el proyecto de particion sometido por el administrador, y en su lugar se aprueba el Contra-proyecto de particion presentado por el abogado Sr. Antonio J. Beldia de fecha 26 de diciembre de 1940 en todas sus partes, y se ordena al administrador que entregue inmediatamente a los herederos la porcion de bienes que corresponde a cada uno de los herederos segun el contra proyecto de particion, debiendo registrar en el expediente los recibos acreditativos sobre dicha entrega dentro del plazo de cinco dias despues de haber recibido copia de esta orden, entendiendose que esta particion esta sujeto sobre el resultado de los terrenos controvertidos en catastro entre el intestado y de los herederos de Gregorio Ortiz, pendiente ante este Juzgado."cralaw virtua1aw library
On April 14, 1941, a motion for reconsideration was filed by Atty. Jose Y. Torres which motion was denied by an order dated May 3, 1941, reading as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"En conjunto a la mocion de reconsideracion de fecha abril 14, 1941, presentado por el abogado Torres, el Juzgado no la encuentra justificada para reconsiderar el auto del Juzgado aprobando el Contra proyecto de particion presentado por el abogado Sr. Antonio J. Beldia, aparte de que antes de probarse dicho contra proyecto de particion se los habia dado oportunidad a los opositores a formular sus objecciones, las cuales son sustancialmente las mismas que se alegaron por el abogado Jose Ortiz Barrios que comparecio al someterse esta mocion de reconsideracion, si bien el abogado Torres solo se limito entonces a presentar una oposicion de formula. Se deniega, por tanto, la mocion de reconsideracion del abogado Torres."cralaw virtua1aw library
On May 26, 1941, a second motion for reconsideration was filed by the same attorney which was granted by the respondent Judge in his order of July 21, 1941, the pertinent portions of which read:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"De los hechos expuestos, se ve que algunos de los lotes o partes de los mismos distribuidos en ambos proyectos de particion son objectos de reclamaciones de varias personas cuya vista habia terminado, y hoy pendiente de decision. Es necesario que el titulo sobre los lotes contenidos en el expediente catastral sea primero resuelto antes de que el juzgado haga distribucion de las propiedades de este intestado.
"Por tanto, confirmando la orden verbal del Juzgado en Corte Abierta se deja sin efecto la orden de fecha 8 de abril de 1941, aprobando el contra-proyecto de particion presentado por el abogado Beldia."cralaw virtua1aw library
It is contended by the petitioner that the order of the respondent Judge of July 21, 1941, was in excess of his jurisdiction on the ground that the order of April 8, 1941, had become final, the second motion for reconsideration not having suspended the period for appeal.
Although the 30-day period for filing an appeal is not interrupted by a motion for reconsideration which is a mere reiteration of a petition to set aside the judgment (Federal Films, Inc. v. Judge of First Instance of Manila 78 Phil., 472), or by a second motion containing something new, which existed and could be used or included in the first (Perez v. Ysip, 81 Phil., 218), there is nothing in the record before us which tends to show that the second motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Jose Y. Torres on May 26, 1941, is one covered by the restrictions. The presumption, therefore, is that the said second motion for reconsideration was based on an allowable ground, and this presumption of regularity is confirmed by the granting of the motion by the respondent Judge. If so, the second motion for reconsideration suspended the running of the period for appeal from the date of its filing on May 26, 1941 to July 21, 1941, when the same was acted upon and granted by the respondent Judge. There can be no doubt that it was filed within the period of 30 days from April 8, 1941, after deducting the time during which the first motion for reconsideration filed on April 14, 1941, was pending, since April 8 to 14, and from May 3 to May 26, only 29 days had elapsed. (Rule of Court 37, sec. 4.)
Wherefore, the petition for certiorari will be as the same is hereby dismissed, without costs.
Moran, C.J., Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Tuason, Briones, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.
