Facts:

The case involves Macario Alquiza and others as petitioners against Placido Alquiza and others, including the Court of Appeals as respondents. The events leading to this case began with an action for partition of real estate initiated in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (the petitioners), prompting the defendants (the respondents) to appeal the decision. However, on January 26, 1959, the Court of Appeals dismissed the defendants' appeal due to their failure to file a brief within the prescribed period. Subsequently, the defendants filed a motion to reinstate their appeal, which was initially opposed by the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals eventually reinstated the appeal and extended the deadline for the defendants to file their brief. The plaintiffs contended that the Court of Appeals had committed a grave abuse of discretion by reinstating the appeal, as the motion for suspension of the filing period was submitt...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioners: Macario Alquiza et al. (descendants/heirs of Pedro Alquiza by his first marriage).
   • Respondents: Placido Alquiza et al. (descendants/heirs of Pedro Alquiza by his second marriage) and the Court of Appeals.

2. Nature of the Case:

   • The case is an action for partition of real estate properties, initiated in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.

3. Procedural History:

   • The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (petitioners).
   • The defendants (respondents) appealed to the Court of Appeals, but their appeal was initially dismissed due to their failure to file their brief within the reglementary period.
   • The Court of Appeals later reinstated the appeal over the plaintiffs' objections.
   • The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint.

4. Key Procedural Issue:

   • The defendants filed a motion for suspension of the period to file their brief nine (9) days after the deadline, citing the illness of their counsel, Atty. Crispin Fernandez.
   • The plaintiffs objected, arguing that the motion was filed late and that the illness was not supported by a medical certificate at the time.
   • The Court of Appeals granted the motion for reinstatement after receiving a medical certificate nearly two months later, which stated that Atty. Fernandez had suffered a cerebral attack and was under medical treatment.

5. Substantive Issue:

   • The plaintiffs claimed that certain properties belonged to the conjugal partnership of Pedro Alquiza's first marriage, while others belonged to the second marriage.
   • The defendants argued that all properties belonged to them exclusively, either by purchase, donation, or prescription.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Procedural Ratio:

   • Appellate courts have discretion in deciding whether to dismiss or reinstate an appeal, considering the circumstances of each case and the demands of substantial justice. The medical certificate submitted by the defendants sufficiently justified the reinstatement of their appeal.

2. Substantive Ratio:

   • In partition cases involving disputed ownership, the credibility of witnesses and the appraisal of documentary evidence are crucial. The findings of the Court of Appeals on these matters are binding on the Supreme Court, as they involve questions of fact rather than law.