Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1953 > September 1953 Decisions > G.R. No. L-5763 September 28, 1953 - EUGENIO AQUINO v. EULOGIO F. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

093 Phil 824:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-5763. September 28, 1953.]

EUGENIO AQUINO, Petitioner, v. EULOGIO F. DE GUZMAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance, Dagupan City, and EMILIANA MENDOZA, Respondents.

Severino D. Dagdag for Petitioner.

Primicias, Abad, Mencias & Castillo for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. PLEADING AND PRACTICE; JOINT TRIAL OF A LAND REGISTRATION CASE AND A CIVIL CASE, APPEAL IN BOTH CASES. — A land registration case was tried jointly with a civil case, because the parties and attorneys were the same in both cases. One single decision was entered in both. The losing party filed a notice of appeal in both cases, a joint record on appeal, and an appeal bond of P60. The trial court gave course only to the appeal in the civil case and refused to allow the appeal in the land registration case. Held: The physical embodiment of both records on appeal into one single document does not make the two cases one, or relieve the appellant of the obligation to file a bond in the other. The identities of both cases are preserved; the oneness of the record on appeal does not modify the nature of one or the other, or merge the registration case into the civil case.

2. APPEALS; UNTIMELY FILING OF APPEAL BOND, WHEN EXCUSABLE. — While there is no error of law committed by the court a quo in dismissing the appeal in the registration cases, there are potent reasons why, in the exercise of its discretion, it should have decreed otherwise. One is the fact that the civil case is entirely dependent upon the registration case. The other reason is the fact that as the two cases were so inextricably related to each other, and they were tried jointly, and only one joint record on appeal presented, the appellant may have overlooked the need of filing two bonds, or thought that one was sufficient without the other. This constitutes an excusable oversight. Under these circumstances, the filing of the bond in 60 days should have been excused and the appeal in the civil case given due course and relief granted as authorized under the provisions of Rule 38. Appeal in the registration case should, therefore, be allowed.


D E C I S I O N


LABRADOR, J.:


This is an original petition instituted in this court to compel the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Judge Eulogio F. de Guzman, presiding, to allow the petitioner’s appeal against its judgment in Land Registration Case No. 302, G.L.R.O. Record No. 1173 to the Court of Appeals. The record discloses that this case was tried by said judge jointly with civil case No. 10965, because the parties in the latter are the same as those of the registration case, and both parties in both cases were represented by the same attorneys. One single decision was entered in both cases. Judgment having been rendered against the petitioner in both cases, his attorney presented on June 19, 1951, a notice of appeal for both and a joint record on appeal for both cases also (bearing titles of both cases), and deposited an appeal bond of P60. This appeal bond was receipted for in the civil case No. 10965 on June 30, 1951 (Annex 4 of answer.) No bond was deposited for the appeal in the land registration case until August 1, 1951 (Annex 5 of answer.) The record on appeal was approved, but the court gave course only to the appeal in the civil case. Objection to the appeal in the registration case was presented and this was sustained by the court, whereupon the present action was filed in this court.

The petitioner contends that since the notice of appeal and the record on appeal were embodied together in single documents in both cases, the certification of the record on appeal in the civil case necessarily included that of the registration case, because the record on appeal in one case is inseparable from that in the other. The contention is entirely without merit. The physical embodiment of both records on appeal into one single document does not make the two cases one, or relieve the petitioner of the obligation to file a bond in the other. The identities of both cases are preserved; the oneness of the record on appeal does not modify the nature of one or the other, or merge the registration case into the civil case.

But while we hold that there is no error of law committed by the court a quo in dismissing the appeal in the registration case, there are potent reasons why, in the exercise of its discretion, it should have decreed otherwise. One is the fact that the civil case is entirely dependent upon the registration case; no recovery of possession can be decreed in favor of, and no damages can accrue to, the plaintiff unless he is declared the owner of the property subject of both cases. When defendant, therefore, questioned plaintiff’s right to the possession and to damages, he must have meant to question plaintiff’s title to the property. The other reason is the fact that as the two cases were so inextricably related to each other, and they were tried jointly, and only one joint record on appeal presented, appellant’s attorney or his client or both may have overlooked the need of filing two bonds, or thought that one was sufficient without the other. This constitutes an excusable oversight. Under these circumstances, the filing of the bond in 60 days should have been excused and the appeal in the civil case given due course and relief granted as authorized under the provisions of Rule 38. The petition is hereby granted, but petitioner should pay the costs.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo and Bautista Angelo, 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






September-1953 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-4860 September 8, 1953 - ENCARNACION E. VDA. DE FERNANDO, ET AL. v. MAGDALENA F. GALLARDO

    093 Phil 708

  • G.R. No. L-5269 September 8, 1953 - ENRIQUE AL. CAPISTRANO v. FEDERICO CARIÑO, ET AL.

    093 Phil 710

  • G.R. No. L-5284 September 11, 1953 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ABESAMIS

    093 Phil 712

  • G.R. No. L-5451 September 14, 1953 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. RODOLFO BALTAZAR

    093 Phil 715

  • G.R. Nos. L-4505 & L-5228 September 15, 1953 - YSIDRA COJUANGCO v. MANUEL ERNESTO GONZALES

    093 Phil 718

  • G.R. No. L-4005 September 16, 1953 - JUAN S. RUSTIA, ET AL. v. AGUINALDO & AGUINALDO

    093 Phil 729

  • G.R. No. L-5458 September 16, 1953 - LUZON STEVEDORING CO. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    093 Phil 735

  • G.R. No. L-6756 September 16, 1953 - NICOLAS Y. FELICIANO, ET AL. v. ARSENIO LUGAY, ET AL.

    093 Phil 744

  • G.R. Nos. L-5664 & L-5698 September 17, 1953 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

    093 Phil 747

  • G.R. No. L-5023 September 18, 1953 - LUIS F. JOSE v. CONSOLIDATED INVESTMENTS INC., ET ,AL.

    093 Phil 752

  • G.R. No. L-5820 September 18, 1953 - ROSARIO MATUTE v. HIGINO MACADAEG, ET AL.

    093 Phil 761

  • G.R. No. L-4080 September 21, 1953 - JOSE R. MARTINEZ v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

    093 Phil 765

  • G.R. No. L-5189 September 21, 1953 - GAUDENCIO SERRANO v. DONATA CABRERA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 774

  • G.R. No. L-4669 September 22, 1953 - BENJAMIN ASTUDILLO, ET AL. v. ANTONIO ASTUDILLO

    093 Phil 777

  • G.R. No. L-4942 September 23, 1953 - NIEVES DURAN EMBATE v. RAFAEL F. PENOLIO

    093 Phil 782

  • G.R. No. L-5856 September 23, 1953 - MARCELINO A. BUSACAY v. ANTONIO F. BUENAVENTURA, ET AL.

    093 Phil 786

  • G.R. No. L-4972 September 25, 1953 - SATURNINO MOLDERO, ET AL. v. SATURNINO MOLDERO

    093 Phil 792

  • G.R. No. L-5469 September 25, 1953 - AIDA F. PENDATUN v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

    093 Phil 798

  • G.R. No. L-5536 September 25, 1953 - LAUREANA TORIO v. NICANOR ROSARIO

    093 Phil 800

  • G.R. No. L-6050 September 25, 1953 - NARCISO BAGTAS v. BIENVENIDO A. TAN

    093 Phil 804

  • G.R. No. L-535 September 28, 1953 - RUTH GREY v. INSULAR LUMBER COMPANY

    093 Phil 807

  • G.R. No. L-5763 September 28, 1953 - EUGENIO AQUINO v. EULOGIO F. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

    093 Phil 824

  • G.R. No. L-1411 September 29, 1953 - DIONISIO RELLOSA v. GAW CHEE HUN

    093 Phil 827

  • G.R. No. 3007 September 29, 1953 - PILAR BAUTISTA, ETC., ET AL. v. HILARIA UY ISABELO, ETC.

    093 Phil 843

  • G.R. No. L-3529 September 29, 1953 - APOLINAR TALENTO, ET AL. v. EIGERO MAKIKI, ET AL.

    093 Phil 855

  • G.R. No. L-4068 September 29, 1953 - BERNABE B. CAOILE v. YU CHIAO PENG

    093 Phil 861

  • G.R. No. L-5040 September 29, 1953 - BASILISA ZAFRA VDA. DE ANCIANO v. FAUSTINA CABALLES

    093 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-5438 September 29, 1953 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. VICENTE VARELA

    093 Phil 878

  • G.R. No. L-5516 September 29, 1953 - FAUSTO COTIA v. POTENCIANO PECSON, ET AL.

    093 Phil 881

  • G.R. No. L-4130 September 30, 1953 - YSABEL B.DE PADILLA v. CONCEPCION PATERNO

    093 Phil 884

  • G.R. Nos. L-4792-95 September 30, 1953 - ERLANGER & GALINGER, INC. v. AMPARO EXCONDE

    093 Phil 894