Title
Alonzo vs. Rosario
Case
G.R. No. L-12309
Decision Date
Apr 30, 1959
Dispute over property classification (conjugal vs. paraphernal) leads to procedural delays; Supreme Court rules motion to dismiss suspends brief filing period, deems appeal timely.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12309)

Facts:

Background of the Case

The case originates from an action for partition filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) against the petitioners (defendants) in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur. The respondents sought the partition of a property they claimed was conjugal, while the petitioners argued that the property was paraphernal and exclusively belonged to Juana Alonzo.

Procedural History

  1. Initial Trial and Decision

    • During the trial, the parties submitted a partial stipulation of facts.
    • Petitioners’ counsel failed to appear on the trial date due to illness, and the trial court allowed the respondents to present their evidence.
    • On April 11, 1955, the trial court declared the property conjugal and ordered its partition.
  2. Motion to Set Aside Decision

    • On May 26, 1955, petitioners filed a verified motion to set aside the decision under Rule 38, Section 3, citing mistake and excusable negligence.
    • The motion was denied for failure to include an affidavit of merits. A second motion for reconsideration was also denied.
  3. Appeal to the Court of Appeals

    • Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals.
    • On February 5, 1957, petitioners received notice to file their brief within 45 days.
    • On February 10, 1957, respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.
    • On February 20, 1957, petitioners were directed to answer the motion to dismiss within 10 days.
    • Petitioners filed their opposition on March 1, 1957, requesting that the period to file their brief run from the date they receive notice of the resolution on the motion to dismiss.
  4. Resolution of the Court of Appeals

    • On April 2, 1957, the Court of Appeals denied the motion to dismiss but also denied petitioners’ motion for an extension to file their brief.
    • Petitioners filed an urgent petition for reconsideration, which was denied, and the appeal was dismissed on April 12, 1957.
    • Despite the dismissal, petitioners filed their brief on April 17, 1957.

Key Issue on Time Computation

The petitioners argued that the 45-day period to file their brief should exclude the time during which the motion to dismiss was pending, as its resolution on April 12, 1957, extended beyond the original deadline of March 22, 1957.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Analogous Application of Rule 8, Section 4

    • Under Rule 8, Section 4, a motion to dismiss in the courts of first instance interrupts the time to plead. The Supreme Court applied this principle by analogy to the proceedings in the Court of Appeals.
    • A bona fide motion to dismiss suspends the period for filing a brief because, if the motion is granted, there would be no need to file the brief.
  2. Practical Consideration

    • Excluding the period during which the motion to dismiss is pending avoids unnecessary preparation and expenses for the appellant.
  3. Timeliness of the Brief

    • If the period during which the motion to dismiss was pending is excluded, the petitioners’ brief filed on April 17, 1957, was submitted within the allowable time.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.