G.R. No. L-286 - Alvero vs. De la Rosa

On October 1, 1940, Margarita Villarica executed a contract of sale with Jose R. Victoriano for two parcels of land totaling 480 square meters located in the Manotoc subdivision, Balintawak, Calaanan, Caloocan, Rizal.

The contract provided that the purchase price was to be paid with a down payment of P1,700 and 120 monthly installments of P76.86; payments were duly made by Victoriano until December 1941, after which, due to wartime conditions, a verbal agreement was reached with Villarica to suspend the payments until the restoration of peace.

While under the impression of having forgotten the earlier sale, Margarita Villarica sold the very same parcels of land to Fredesvindo S. Alvero on December 31, 1944, for P100,000 in Japanese military notes.

In her answer to a complaint earlier filed by Victoriano, Villarica admitted to having sold the land to Alvero and even offered, on different occasions, to repurchase the property at a lower price (with figures mentioned as either P5,000 or P8,000) after liberation, but Alvero refused to accept such an offer.

Jose R. Victoriano initiated a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking two reliefs: (a) the enforcement of the contract of sale executed with Villarica in favor of him and (b) the declaration of nullity of the subsequent sale to Alvero.

Fredesvindo S. Alvero, in his answer, denied the allegations of Victoriano, claimed exclusive ownership of the disputed land, and raised a counterclaim demanding a P200 monthly rent and P2,000 in damages from Victoriano.

After the trial, Judge Mariano L. de la Rosa rendered his decision on November 16, 1945, awarding title to Jose R. Victoriano based on his earlier possession, improvements made to the property, and the fact that his deed of sale was older than the one executed in favor of Alvero. The decision also dismissed Alvero’s counterclaim.

Fredesvindo S. Alvero was notified of the trial decision on November 28, 1945, after which he filed a petition for reconsideration and a motion for new trial on December 27, 1945; these motions were subsequently denied on January 3, 1946.

On January 8, 1946, Alvero filed his notice of appeal along with the record on appeal in the lower court. However, the required P60 appeal bond was not filed simultaneously but was only subsequently filed on January 15, 1946.

On January 14, 1946, Victoriano filed a petition to dismiss the appeal, concurrently requesting the execution of the judgment. Alvero opposed this motion, alleging that the late filing of the appeal bond was excusable due to the illness and subsequent death of his lawyer’s wife.

After the respondent judge, on January 17, 1946, ordered the dismissal of Alvero’s appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the prescribed period for perfecting the appeal, Alvero filed a petition for certiorari on February 11, 1946.

The respondents countered that the petition was defective and asserted that no excusable negligence or grave abuse of judicial discretion existed in the lower court’s dismissal decision.

Whether the delayed filing of the P60 appeal bond, which was submitted on January 15, 1946 instead of within the prescribed period, constitutes sufficient grounds to dismiss the appeal.
Whether the excuse provided by petitioner—that his lawyer’s wife fell ill and died, thereby affecting the timely filing of the appeal—can be deemed a valid justification for the procedural lapse.
Whether strict adherence to the procedural deadlines prescribed by the Rules of Court, which are considered indispensable to avoid delays and ensure the orderly administration of justice, mandates the dismissal of the appeal despite any extenuating personal circumstances.
Whether any grave abuse of discretion was committed by Judge Mariano L. de la Rosa in dismissing Alvero’s appeal under these circumstances.