G.R No. L-286; 29 March 1946
Posted by: Michelle M. Bacarra on July 21, 2018
FACTS:
Margarita Villarica sold to Jose R. Victoriano 480 square meters area of land on October 1, 1940, for the sum of P6,000. Their agreement includes that Victoriano should make a down payment of P1,700, and a monthly payment of P76.86 in 120 equal monthly installments. Immediately after the sale, Victoriano took possession of the land and made improvements to the amount of P800. On December, 1941, because of the war-time conditions then existing, Villarica and Victoriano agreed verbally to suspend such payments until the restoration of peace. Victoriano continued occupying said property not until December, 1944 because he went to go to evacuation places, but returned thereto in February, 1945. The agreement also includes that, upon failure of the purchaser to make payments of three (3) successive monthly installments, the vendor would be free to sell the property again, forfeiting the payments made, except in the case of force majeure.
Meanwhile, on December 31, 1944, , Villarica, having claimed to forgot to have sold said land to to Victoriano, sold the same toFredesvindo S. Alvero for P100,000 in Japanese military notes. After liberation, she offered to repurchase said property from Alvero for of PHP8,000 but the latter refused to accept the offer. On the other hand, on January 3, 1945, Fredesvindo S. Alvero presented the deed of sale, executed in his favor, to the Register of Deeds of the City of Manila, and took possession of said property in December, 1944. Then, Alvero found out that Victoriano is in the premises in February, 1945. Both Victoriano and Alvero, although had presented the deed of sale they separately executed with Villarica, to the ROD, had failed to secure the transfer of title.
On June 25, 1945, Victoriano filed a complaint, in the RTC of the City of Manila, against Alvero and Villarica, (1) to declare in force the contract of sale of the subject land, made on October 1, 1940, between Victoriano and Villarica, and (2) to declare subsequent sale of said land to Alvero, null and void. In his answer, Alvero denied the allegations, and claimed exclusive ownership of the land, and at the same time set up a counterclaim and crossclaim, demanding from Victoriano a P200-monthly rent on said property, beginning from February, 1945, plus P2,000 as damages. Villarica filed an answer, expressly admitting having sold said land to Alvero , in December, 1944, in order to raise funds to support for herself and family, and that forgot of the previous sale, but had offered repurchase of said property to Alvero, the latter refused.
The RTC judge rendered his decision in favor of Victoriano, taking into consideration Victoriano's document was older than that of Alvero, and that the former had taken possession of said property, since October 1, 1940. Adjudging to Victoriano the title over the property in question, including all the improvements existing thereon, and dismissed the counterclaim.
On November 28, 1945, Alvero was notified of said decision; and on December 27, 1945, he filed a petition for reconsideration and new trial, which was denied on January 3, 1946; and of said order he was notified on January 7, 1946.
On January 8, 1946, Fredesvindo S. Alvero filed his notice of appeal and record on appeal simultaneously in the lower court, without filing the P60-appeal bond.
On January 14, 1946, Jose R. Victoriano filed a petition to dismiss the appeal, and at the same time, asked for the execution of the judgment.
On January 15, 1946, Fredesvindo S. Alvero filed an opposition to said motion to dismiss, alleging that on the very same day, January 15, 1946, said appeal bond for P60 had been actually filed, and allege as an excuse, for not filing the said appeal bond, in due time, the illness of his lawyer's wife, who died on January 10, 1946, and buried the following day.
On January 17, 1946, the respondent judge, Hon. Mariano L. de la Rosa, ordered the dismissal of the appeal, declaring that, although the notice of appeal and record on appeal had been filed in due time, the P60-appeal bond was filed too late.
On January 23, 1946, Fredesvindo S. Alvero filed a petition for the reconsideration of the said order dated January 17, 1946, dismissing his appeal; and said petition for reconsideration was denied on January 29, 1946.
Alvero filed petition for certiorari, on grounds of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge and of the CA in not relaxing the rules.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge and of the CA in not relaxing the rules.
HELD:
No, the petition is untenable. 1) Said petition is defective in form as well as in substance; (2) There has been no excusable negligence, on the part of the petitioner, or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge, in the instant case.
Rules of courts, promulgated by authority of law, have the force and effect of law; and rules of court prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. Strict compliance with the rules of court has been held mandatory and imperative, so that failure to failure to perfect and file his appeal, within the period fixed for that purpose, will cause the dismissal of the appeal.
As already stated, the decision rendered by the respondent judge, Hon. Mariano L. de la Rosa, was dated November 16, 1945, of which counsel for Fredesvindo S. Alvero was notified on November 28, 1945; that his motion for reconsideration and new trial was filed on December 27, 1945, and denied on January 3, 1946, and that said counsel for Alvero was notified of said order on January 7, 1946; and that he filed his notice of appeal and record on appeal the following day, to wit, January 8, 1946, and that the P60-appeal bond was filed only on January 15, 1946. Counsel for the petitioner Fredesvindo Alvero alleges as an excuse, for his failure to perfect and file his appeal, in due time, the illness of his wife, which ended in her death on January 10, 1946, and by which he was greatly affected. The attorney for petitioner Fredesvindo S. Alvero could have asked for an extension of time, within which to file and perfect his appeal, in the court below; but he had failed to do so, and he must bear the consequences of his act. A strict observance of the rules of court, which have been considered indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to the orderly and speedy dispatch of judicial business, is an imperative necessity.
It may not be amiss to state in this connection that no irreparable damage has been caused to the petitioner Fredesvindo S. Alvero, as Margarita Villarica, the vendor to the two, of the land in question, has shown readiness to repair the damage done.
According to the computation erroneously made by the court, the last day for filing and perfecting the appeal, in this case, was January 8, 1946, or which date, Fredesvindo S. Alvero should have filed his (1) notice of appeal, (2) record on appeal, and (3) appeal bond. But the P60-appeal bond was filed only on January 15, 1946.
Failure to perfect the appeal, within the time prescribed by the rules of court, will cause the judgment to become final, and the certification of the record on appeal thereafter, cannot restore the jurisdiction which has been lost. The period within which the record on appeal and appeal bond should be perfected and filed may, however, be extended by order of the court, upon application made, prior to the expiration of the original period.
No showing having been made that there had been merely excusable negligence, on the part of the attorney for petitioner Fredesvindo S. Alvero, and that there had been gave abuse of sound judicial discretion, on the part of the respondent judge, the petition for certiorari filed in this case, is, therefore, dismissed.
