Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > February 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23342 February 10, 1968 - MACARIO ALQUIZA, ET AL. v. PLACIDO ALQUIZA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23342. February 10, 1968.]

MACARIO ALQUIZA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. PLACIDO ALQUIZA, ET AL., and the COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Ozaeta, Gibbs & Ozaeta and Aurelio Nacino, for Petitioners.

Jose A. Madarang and A.G. Salazar for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; APPELLATE COURTS; APPEAL, DISMISSAL OF; FAILURE TO FILE APPELLANT’S BRIEF; POWER TO REINSTATE APPEAL. — In passing upon whether an appeal should be dismissed for failure to file appellants brief or to reinstate the same, an appellate court may exercise, not only its judgment, but also its discretion, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case, including the demands of substantial justice.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; CASE AT BAR. — Here, counsel had a cerebral attack. He had not fully recovered therefrom. Now and then, he had amnesia and his power of speech had been impaired. He had been under medical treatment due to the recurrence of his illness. HELD: The appellate court did not commit grave abuse of discretion in reinstating defendant’s appeal.

3. ID.; ID.; FINDINGS OF FACT; CONCLUSIVE UPON SUPREME COURT. — The main issue is one of fact, on which both parties introduced testimonial and documentary evidence. Since the decision hinges on the determination of the pertinent facts herein, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon us and beyond our power of review.


D E C I S I O N


CONCEPCION, C.J.:


Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals.

This is an action for partition mostly of real estate, initiated in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. In due course, the same rendered judgment for the plaintiffs and against the defendants, who sought a review by the Court of Appeals; but, on January 26, 1959, the latter dismissed the appeal on account of defendants’ failure to file their brief within the reglementary period. On motion of the defendants, said appeal was, subsequently, reinstated, over plaintiffs’ objection thereto. After appropriate proceedings thereafter, said appellate court rendered a decision reversing that of the trial court and dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint. Hence, the present petition, for review on certiorari, of plaintiffs herein, who maintain that the Court of Appeals erred in reinstating defendants’ appeal and, later, in rendering judgment for the defendants.

It appears that the defendants had been given by the Court of Appeals the reglementary period of forty-five (45) days, from notice, within which to file their brief, said period to expire on January 24, 1959; that no such brief was filed on or before this date; that, nine (9) days later, or on February 2, 1959, defendants mailed a motion, dated January 31, 1959, praying for the suspension of the running of said period, upon the ground of illness of their counsel; that plaintiffs objected thereto and moved to dismiss the appeal; that, on February 26, 1959, the appellate court denied said motion for suspension and dismissed the appeal; that defendants moved for a reconsideration of the order to this effect and submitted a medical certificate attesting to the illness of their counsel; that plaintiffs objected to this motion; and that, this notwithstanding, the Court of Appeals granted the same, reinstated defendants’ appeal, and extended the period for the filing of defendants’ brief, which, eventually, was filed seasonably.

Plaintiffs contend that the Court of Appeals had thereby committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, inasmuch as defendants’ motion for suspension of the period to file their brief was filed after the period prescribed therefor had lapsed and the alleged illness of their counsel was not supported by a medical certificate. As regards the one submitted by the defendants, almost two (2) months later, in support of their motion for reinstatement of their appeal, plaintiffs allege that the certificate at best shows that defendants’ counsel, Atty. Crispin Fernandez, had hypertension, which does not necessarily incapacitate him from preparing his brief or, at least, filing a motion for extension or suspension of the period therefor before its expiration, and that said illness must have been feigned, because the records of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan show that Atty. Fernandez had appeared before the same, several times, from January 7 to January 29, 1959, in connection with some cases specified in Annexes A-1 to E- 1 to plaintiffs’ opposition to said motion of the defendants.

It should be noted, however, that, in passing upon the question whether or not an appeal should be dismissed for failure of the appellant to file his brief or to explain the same, or whether an appeal shall be reinstated, an appellate court may exercise, not only its judgment, but, also, its discretion, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case, including, if not particularly, the demands of substantial justice. 1 In the case at bar, the aforementioned medical certificate 2 shows that Atty. Fernandez had a "cerebral attack" in May, 1958; that he had not fully recovered therefrom; that his power of speech had, also, been impaired; that "now and then" he had "amnesia;" and that, as late as February 10, 1959, and subsequent days, he had been under medical treatment, due to the recurrence of his illness. Considering this background, and the view taken by the appellate court on the merits of the case, we do not feel that a grave abuse of discretion had been committed in reinstating defendants’ appeal.

Let us now take up the merits of the case. The same is an action for partition. Plaintiffs are the descendants, and/or heirs of Pedro Alquiza by his first marriage. 3 Defendants are his descendants and/or heirs by a second marriage. 4 Plaintiffs contended that some properties described in the complaint belonged to the conjugal partnership of the first marriage and that the other properties described in the same pleading belonged to the conjugal partnership of the second marriage. 5 Upon the other hand, defendants alleged that all of the properties in litigation belong to them exclusively, some by purchase from Pedro Alquiza or from other persons, and some by donation made by Pedro Alquiza, and that, moreover, they (defendants) had acquired title to said properties, as sole and exclusive owners thereof, by prescription.

Thus the main issue was one of fact, on which both parties introduced testimonial and documentary evidence. His Honor, the trial Judge did not find the testimony of the witnesses for the defense worthy of belief. Neither did he give full faith and credence to the documentary evidence presented by the defendants. Indeed, "the lower court had in effect annulled six (6) notarial documents," in the language of the Court of Appeals. In a detailed and carefully prepared decision, the latter, after analyzing that of the Court of First Instance, as well as the evidence on record, and the arguments pro and con, reached, however, the opposite conclusion. Inasmuch, as the same depended upon the credibility of the testimony of said witnesses and upon an appraisal of the surrounding circumstances, as factors affecting the faith and credence to be accorded to defendants’ documentary evidence, it is clear that, insofar as the merits of the case, the decision thereon hinges on the determination of the pertinent facts, the findings on which of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon us and beyond our power of review.

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of the Court of Appeals must be, as it is hereby affirmed, with costs against plaintiffs herein. It is so ordered.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Ordoveza v. Raymundo, 63 Phil. 275; Chavez v. Ganzon, L-13831, May 16, 1960. See also, The Palmera, 12 Wheat. 9, 6L. ed. 531; Bank of U.S. v. Swan, 3 Pet. 68, 7L. ed. 605.

2. Dated March 29, 1959.

3. His first wife, Josefa Mores, had died in 1891.

4. The original parties were children of the deceased, but, owing to the demise of some of them, during the pendency of the case, the deceased parties were substituted by their descendants and/or heirs, thus requiring several amendment of the original complaint.

5. The second wife, Susana Mirador, had died before the institution of this case in May, 1939.




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






February-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 381 February 10, 1968 - EMILIO CAPULONG, ET AL. v. MANUEL G. ALIÑO

  • G.R. No. L-23342 February 10, 1968 - MACARIO ALQUIZA, ET AL. v. PLACIDO ALQUIZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22944 February 10, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIA SAN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22067 February 10, 1968 - LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO., INC. v. JOSE SOTOMAYOR

  • G.R. No. L-24147 February 10, 1968 - FEDERICO R. CASTRO, ET AL. v. MATILDE PARA-ON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24319 February 10, 1968 - LONDON ASSURANCE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24950 February 10, 1968 - IN RE: JAO KING YOG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25314 February 10, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF TACURONG v. ROSARIO ABRAGAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

  • G.R. No. L-23433 February 10, 1968 - GLORIA G. JOCSON v. RICARDO R. ROBLES

  • G.R. No. L-28455 February 10, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23882 February 17, 1968 - M.D. TRANSIT & TAXI CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 106 February 17, 1968 - IRINEO A. MERCADO v. ENRIQUE MEDINA

  • G.R. No. L-19227 February 17, 1968 - DIOSDADO YULIONGSIU v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-20411 February 17, 1968 - BARTOLOME E. SAN DIEGO v. SALVADOR R. VILLAGRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22138 February 17, 1968 - ANG CHING GI v. DELGADO BROTHERS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23794 February 17, 1968 - ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC. v. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23861 February 17, 1968 - EMILIANA CRUZ v. ERNESTO OPPEN, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24289 February 17, 1968 - CENTRAL TAXICAB CORPORATION v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24529 February 17, 1968 - EDUARDO JIMENEZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24910 February 17, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-28170 & L-28200 February 17, 1968 - CARMEN PARDO DE TAVERA v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28519 February 17, 1968 - RICARDO PARULAN v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-26934 February 19, 1968 - WISE & COMPANY, INC. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20722 February 20, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO ALEGARME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23595 February 20, 1968 - IN RE: ANTONIO ANG GUI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-28596 February 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TILOS

  • G.R. No. L-28517 February 21, 1968 - AMELITO R. MUTUC, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23539 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DALTON

  • G.R. No. L-24033 February 22, 1968 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. UNITED STATES LINES

  • G.R. No. L-24146 February 22, 1968 - MIGUEL MABILIN, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO S. MILLAR

  • G.R. No. L-24223 February 22, 1968 - CORNELIO AGUILA, ET AL. v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24225 February 22, 1968 - MANUEL CUDIAMAT, ET AL. v. GUILLERMO E. TORRES

  • G.R. No. L-24546 February 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS MACALISANG

  • G.R. No. L-24364 February 22, 1968 - BIENVENIDO MEDRANO v. FILEMON MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-25529 February 22, 1968 - BENJAMIN PANGANIBAN, ET AL. v. ARACELI VDA. DE STA. MARIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26767 February 22, 1968 - ANG TIONG v. LORENZO TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23859 February 22, 1968 - CONSOLIDATED TEXTILE MILLS, INC. v. REPARATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22579 February 23, 1968 - ROLANDO LANDICHO v. LORENZO RELOVA

  • G.R. No. L-23793 February 23, 1968 - ORMOC SUGARCANE PLANTERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23960 & L-23961 February 26, 1968 - DIWA NG PAGKAKAISA-PAFLU v. FILTEX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-23425 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. v. MIGUEL FORTICH CELDRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24241 February 26, 1968 - HATIB ABBAIN v. TONGHAM CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21853 February 26, 1968 - MUNICIPALITY OF OPON v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23803 February 26, 1968 - C.F. SHARP & COMPANY, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-23687 February 26, 1968 - GO LEA CHU, ET AL. v. CORAZON GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24362 February 26, 1968 - TACLOBAN ELECTRIC & ICE PLANTS CO., INC. v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24619 February 26, 1968 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24864 February 26, 1968 - FORTUNATO F. HALILI v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25035 February 26, 1968 - EDUARDA S. VDA. DE GENUINO v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-25152 February 26, 1968 - PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF PAMPANGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25335 February 26, 1968 - SUN BROS. APPLIANCES v. TRINITY LUNCHEONETTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25383 February 26, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. FRANCISCO ARCA

  • G.R. No. L-19347 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL GAMAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22476 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SENANDO PANGANIBAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25491 February 27, 1968 - BIENVENIDO F. REYES v. ROMEO G. ABELEDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28651 February 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AMERICAN PIONEER LINE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19200 February 27, 1968 - EMILIO SY v. MANUEL DALMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20081 February 27, 1968 - MELQUIADES RAAGAS, ET AL. v. OCTAVIO TRAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23385 February 27, 1968 - IN RE: SANTIAGO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21624 February 27, 1968 - SEGUNDO SANTOS v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25176 February 27, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO YAP, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-27360 February 28, 1968 - RICARDO G. PAPA v. REMEDIOS MAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24284 February 28, 1968 - JAIME LIM v. LOCAL REGISTRAR OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-2849 February 28, 1968 - DOMACAO ALONTO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-23335 & L-23452 February 29, 1968 - ROSITA C. DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22390 February 29, 1968 - IN RE: TAN KHE SHING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24064 February 29, 1968 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE CO. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-28597 February 29, 1968 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS & SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20990 February 29, 1968 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BAN v. AGUSTIN PARIÑA