Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > September 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23370-71 September 28, 1968 - TERESA FERRER, ET AL. v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23370-71. September 28, 1968.]

TERESA, NICOLASA, BERNARDO, all surnamed FERRER and PATERNO BANDORIO, Petitioners, v. HON. CESARIO C. GOLEZ, Presiding Judge of Branch I, Court of First Instance of Capiz, ADERIANO, BERNARDO, LEONCIA (ALONCIA), all surnamed LEONOR; ENICITAS CORCINO and SILVESTRA BANDORIO; NICASIO TIMTIMAN, BIBIANA L. TIMTIMAN, LEONCIO CORCINO LEONOR, LEMUEL C. LEONOR AND CHARITO LEONOR, Respondents.

Agustin V. Velante, for Petitioners.

Eleuterio F. Martinez for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; PRO FORMA MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; EFFECT THEREOF UPON PERIOD FOR APPEAL. — The unverified motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner without serving notice thereof upon the attorney on record of the adverse party was correctly considered by respondent judge as a motion pro forma. As such, the motion did not suspend the running of the period of appeal from the order of dismissal.

2. ID.; APPEAL; DISMISSAL THEREOF; NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION COMMITTED BY RESPONDENT JUDGE IN DISMISSING APPEAL WHERE MOVANTS ARE STRANGERS TO THE CASE; INSTANT CASE. — Petitioner Bandorio filed the motions in his capacity as attorney-in-fact of the spouses Rufino Ferrer and Leoncia Leonor. As far as Rufino Ferrer is concerned, said power of attorney must be deemed to have lapsed upon his death. On the other hand, it must be deemed to have been cancelled or withdrawn by the surviving principal Leoncia Leonor when she took over the prosecution of the case. As far as the other movants are concerned, it does not appear that they had ever asked the respondent court to allow them to intervene or allow the substitution of Rufino Ferrer either by his legal representative or by his intestate heirs — which they claim to be. The pronouncement, therefore, made by the respondent judge to the effect that they were strangers to the case at the time their motion for reconsideration was filed and was resolved is correct. It is clear that respondent judge, in issuing the order granting the motion for the dismissal of the appeal, acted within his jurisdiction and did not commit any grave abuse of discretion amounting in law to lack of jurisdiction.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


Petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by Teresa, Nicolasa, Bernardo, all surnamed Ferrer, and Paterno Bandorio, against the Honorable Cesario C. Golez, Presiding Judge, Branch I, Court of First Instance of Capiz, Aderiano, Bernardo, Leoncia, all surnamed Leonor, and others, praying "that the respondent presiding judge, Honorable Cesario C. Golez be ordered to set aside his order of May 5, 1964, granting motion to dismiss of plaintiff-appellee Leoncia (Aloncia) Leonor the same being issued without jurisdiction and null and void ab initio; to give due course to the appeal by plaintiffs-appellants in Civil Cases Nos. V-2589 and V-2607; ordering respondent presiding judge the substitution of the decedent plaintiff-appellant Rufino Ferrer by his legal heirs and attorneys-in-fact, who are the legitimate heirs of the said deceased; and granting unto the petitioners such other or further relief as may be deemed just and equitable."cralaw virtua1aw library

In Civil Case No. V-2589 of the court named above, Rufino Ferrer filed a complaint to annul certain deeds of sale and to recover from the therein defendants Aderiano Leonor and others the ownership and possession of one-half of the five parcels of land described in said pleading, with damages.

In Civil Case No. V-2607 of the same court, the spouses Leoncia Leonor and Rufino Ferrer filed a verified complaint against Nicasio Timtiman and others to annul the deed of sale attached thereto as Annex A and the deed of mortgage allegedly executed by them in favor of the spouses Nicasio Timtiman and Bibiana L. Timtiman, and to recover ownership and possession of the parcel of land described in said pleading and instruments, also with damages.

As the parcel of land involved in the second case was one of the five parcels subject matter of the first and both cases involved the same parties, they were consolidated.

In Civil Case No. V-2589 defendant Enicitas Corsino Vda. de Leonor filed her answer (See the record on appeal attached to the petition under consideration as Annex C, pp. 28-32), while the other defendants Enicitas Corcino Vda. de Leonor, Aloncia Leonor Ferrer, Aderiano and Bernardo Leonor and Silvestre Bandorio filed their respective separate answers (See at pp. 10-12, 28-40 of the record).

As the present action does not involve the merits of the case, all that we need to state here is that all the answers of the defendants prayed that the complaint be dismissed and that the sales sought to be annulled be declared valid.

In Civil Case No. V-2607 the spouses Nicasio Timtiman and Bibiana L. Timtiman filed their answer to the complaint now appearing at pp. 34-40 of the same Annex C, praying, inter alia, for a declaration of the validity of the deed of sale questioned in the complaint, and for damages.

The other defendant Enicitas Corsino filed her own answer now appearing at pp. 4-45 of the same Annex C praying for the dismissal of the complaint and for a declaration of validity of the deed of sale questioned in the complaint, and for damages.

The plaintiffs, in turn, filed their answer to the counterclaims interposed by the defendants.

After several incidents involving the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, the cases were tried on the merits and finally, on July 23, 1963, the Court rendered its judgment now appearing at pp. 95-101 of Annex C, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby entered dismissing the complaint in the above-captioned cases, with costs in both instance against the plaintiffs. The defendants Necitas Leonor and her co-defendants, her minor children, are hereby declared owners of the land in Batiano (described in Exhibit 5) and the land in Maralag (described in Exhibit 6), except the portion of two and a half (2-1/2) hectares of the Maralag, land, which is hereby declared as the property of the spouses defendants Nicasio Timtiman and Bibiana L. Timtiman by virtue of the sale a retro embodied in Exhibit 16. Said defendants are likewise declared entitled to possession of their respective properties, and Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to pay to the defendants spouses Timtiman 40 Cavans of palay per agricultural crop year starting the month of April 1962 or their equivalent marked value until the portion of the Maralag land pertaining to said Timtimans shall have been returned to them."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is not disputed that the defeated parties filed their notice of appeal, appeal bond and record on appeal — amended subsequently pursuant to an order of the court — within the reglementary period, and that the appeal was duly perfected on January 3, 1964.

It is also an admitted fact that Rufino Ferrer, plaintiff in Civil Case No. V-2589, died in the month of December 1963 — five months after the cases were decided. On April 27, 1964, after the perfection of the appeal mentioned heretofore but before the elevation of the record on appeal and other pertinent papers to the Court of appeals, his widow, Leoncia Leonor, filed in both cases a motion to dismiss the appeal interposed therein (Exhibit D attached to the petition). Said motion was granted by the respondent judge in his order of May 6 of the same year (Exhibit F attached to the same petition).

Under date of May 20, 1964 Paterno Bandorio, through counsel, filed an unverified motion to set aside the order of the Court dismissing the appeal, with a notice to the Clerk of Court to set it for hearing ten days later. On May 30, 1964 the respondent judge issued an order declining to take cognizance of, and to act upon said motion for reconsideration because of movant’s’ failure to serve notice thereof upon the attorney of record of the adverse party (Exhibit G attached to the petition).

It appears further that on May 27, 1964, that is, previous to the issuance of the abovementioned order of May 30, 1964, the respondent judge, acting upon a motion for execution filed by the winning parties, issued an order for the issuance of said writ in view of the fact that, according to the record, the decision rendered in both cases had become final and executory due to the withdrawal of the appeal interposed by the defeated parties.

Under date of June 8, 1964 Paterno Bandorio again filed a motion for reconsideration of the order dismissing the appeal and for another order suspending enforcement of the writ of execution.

Under date of July 10, 1964, another motion to set aside the order granting the motion to dismiss the appeal was filed by Teresa, Nicolasa, and Bernardo Ferrer, and also by Paterno Bandorio — the latter as alleged attorney-in-fact of the spouses Leoncia Leonor and of the deceased Rufino Ferrer — supported by an alleged affidavit of merit whose main allegations were that Leoncia Leonor was the surviving spouse of the deceased Rufino Ferrer; that the latter had died intestate and without any dependents; that his only surviving heirs were his widow and his sisters, the movants Nicolasa and Teresa Ferrer, the other movant Paterno Bandorio being only the son of the latter; that the order of dismissal was irregularly issued because the motion to dismiss the appeal was filed by Leoncia Leonor alone.

Resolving the two motions for reconsideration mentioned above, the respondent judge on July 18, 1964 issued an order of the following tenor:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"With the objection of counsel for the defendants on the ground that the movants herein are strangers to those cases, the motion to set aside the within order granting a previous motion filed by the plaintiffs to dismiss the appeal is, for lack of merits, hereby dismissed."cralaw virtua1aw library

As stated heretofore, the respondent judge refused to take cognizance of, and act upon the motion for reconsideration filed by Paterno Bandorio under date of May 20, 1964 because of the latter’s failure to serve notice thereof upon the attorney of record of the adverse party. In other words, his Honor considered said motion — and correctly so — as a motion pro-forma. As such, therefore, it did not suspend the running of the period of appeal from the order of dismissal.

The second motion for reconsideration filed by Paterno Bandorio was dated June 8, 1964, while the third filed by the same party, together with Teresa and Nicolasa Ferrer, was dated July 10, 1964. The former may be presumed to have been filed within the reglementary period of thirty days from notice of the order dismissing the appeal, but the contrary presumption applies to the latter because it was filed more than sixty days from the date of the issuance of the order dismissing the appeal. Moreover, the respondent judge found that all the parties who filed the motions to set aside the order dismissing the appeal had no legal standing in the case.

Paterno Bandorio filed said motions in his alleged capacity as attorney-in-fact of the spouses Rufino Ferrer and Leoncia Leonor. As far as Rufino Ferrer is concerned, said power of attorney, assuming it to have been validly executed, must be deemed to have lapsed upon his death which took place in the month of December 1963. On the other hand, it must be deemed to have been cancelled or withdrawn by the surviving principal, Leoncia Leonor, when the latter took over the prosecution of the case by filing a motion to dismiss the appeal interposed by her.

As far as the other movants are concerned, namely, Teresa and Nicolasa Ferrer, it does not appear that they had ever asked the respondent court to allow them to intervene or to allow the substitution of the deceased Rufino Ferrer either by his legal representative or by his intestate heirs — which they claim to be, together with the surviving spouse. Therefore, the pronouncement made by the respondent judge to the effect that they were strangers to the case at the time their motion for reconsideration was filed and was resolved is correct.

Upon the foregoing, it is clear that the respondent judge, in issuing the order granting the motion for the dismissal of the appeal, acted within his jurisdiction and did not commit any grave abuse of discretion amounting in law to lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the writs prayed for are denied and the present action is hereby dismissed, with costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Zaldivar, J., did not take part.




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-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20977 September 7, 1968 - JOAQUIN P. NEMENZO v. BERNABE SABILLANO

  • G.R. No. L-28470 September 19, 1968 - REAL MONASTERIO v. DOMINGO FABIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24498 September 21, 1968 - TANGLAW NG PAGGAWA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24687 September 21, 1968 - IN RE: FONG CHOY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25135 September 21, 1968 - PHILIPPINE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

  • G.R. No. L-25484 September 21, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SERVILLANO MA. MODESTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29417 September 21, 1968 - EDILBERTA P. ANOTA, ET AL. v. EDUARDO BERMUDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21303 September 23, 1968 - REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21942 September 23, 1968 - ELIZALDE & CO., INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25791 September 23, 1968 - CARLOS B. GONZALES v. EULOGIO SERRANO

  • G.R. No. L-24833 September 23, 1968 - FIELDMEN’S INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MERCEDES VARGAS VDA. DE SONGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24202 September 23, 1968 - C.A. CHIONG SHIPPING CO., ET AL. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21070 September 23, 1968 - REPUBLIC TELEPHONE CO., INC. v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21402 September 23, 1968 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. JOSE ARAÑAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24303 September 23, 1968 - BEATRIZ C. ARAGONES, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-26137 September 23, 1968 - EUGENIO V. VILLANUEVA, JR. v. JOSE R. QUERUBIN

  • G.R. No. L-18010 September 25, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO CABILTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24656 September 25, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. NUMERIANO C. ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25031 September 25, 1968 - ISIDORO GEVEROLA v. VICENTE N. CUSI, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25379 September 25, 1968 - JOSE L. LACHICA, ET AL. v. JUAN E. YAP

  • G.R. No. L-22733 September 25, 1968 - SALVADOR BENEDICTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23302 September 25, 1968 - ALEJANDRO RAS v. ESTELA SUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25132 September 25, 1968 - FRANCISCO DUQUE v. GAVINA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28927 September 25, 1968 - LAGUNA COLLEGE v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29193 September 26, 1968 - CIPRIANO P. MALIWANAG v. AMEURFINA MELENCIO-HERRERA

  • G.R. No. L-25531 September 26, 1968 - ELENO T. SANGALANG, SR. v. HUGO H. CAINGAT

  • G.R. No. L-21299 September 27, 1968 - ANSELMA PENDON, ET AL. v. JOSE R. CABATUANDO

  • G.R. No. L-21183 September 27, 1968 - VICTORIAS MILLING, CO., INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF VICTORIAS

  • G.R. No. L-23991 September 27, 1968 - UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COMPAÑIA MARITIMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25222 September 27, 1968 - BESSIE M. GRAY, ET AL. v. VICENTE C. KIUNGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25226 September 27, 1968 - ISABELO PINZA v. TEOFILO ALDOVINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25790 September 27, 1968 - JOSE A. GARCIA v. ADELAIDA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-28493 September 27, 1968 - AGRIPINA J. VALDEZ, ET AL. v. ESTELA DIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29362 September 27, 1968 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23958 September 28, 1968 - EASTERN PAPER MILLS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU v. EASTERN PAPER MILLS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24489 September 28, 1968 - AUGUSTIN GRACILLA v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24503 September 28, 1968 - IN RE: LO BENG HA ONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24934 September 28, 1968 - J.M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. RAYMUNDO FAMILARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25359 September 28, 1968 - ARADA LUMUNGO, JUHURI DAWA, ET AL. v. ASAAD USMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25511 September 28, 1968 - PATRICIO S. CUNANAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28246 September 28, 1968 - ROGELIO PUREZA, ET AL. v. ALBERTO AVERIA

  • G.R. No. L-29532 September 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO OANDASAN

  • G.R. No. L-20993 September 28, 1968 - RIZAL LIGHT & ICE CO., INC. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MORONG, RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22110 September 28, 1968 - CRISTOBAL MARCOS, ET AL. v. MARIA JESUS DE ERQUIAGA DE BANUVAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23312 September 28, 1968 - JULIO GATLABAYAN, ET AL. v. EMILIANO C. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. L-23370-71 September 28, 1968 - TERESA FERRER, ET AL. v. CESARIO C. GOLEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23832 September 28, 1968 - PROCESO APOLEGA v. PERSEVERANDA HIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24155 September 28, 1968 - DELFIN SANTOS, ET AL. v. ROBERTO E. CHICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25133 September 28, 1968 - JOSE SANTIAGO v. CELSO ALIKPALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25361 September 28, 1968 - LEONARDO NAVARRO v. LUIS L. LARDIZABAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29026 September 28, 1968 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29471 September 28, 1968 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. JOAQUIN M. SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21544 September 30, 1968 - J.M TUASON & CO., INC. v. ATANACIO MUNAR

  • G.R. No. L-25051 September 30, 1968 - JOSE B. ROXAS, ET AL. v. PEDRO BERMUDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25150 September 30, 1968 - ANICIA CADIZ v. SECRETARY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, ET AL.