Facts:

The case involves Felicidad Ambat (petitioner and appellee) against the Director of Lands (oppositor and appellant), decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on January 30, 1953. The origins of the dispute trace back to the petition made by Ambat for the registration of a parcel of land situated in Davao, filed on August 6, 1935, in the Court of First Instance of Davao. The Director of Lands opposed the application, filing an amended opposition on August 4, 1939. After due proceedings, the court rendered a judgement on December 12, 1939, ordering the registration of the land in favor of Ambat. The Director of Lands promptly appealed from this decision, and the case records, including the bill of exceptions and evidence, were forwarded to the Court of Appeals on April 8, 1940. However, during the liberation of Manila, the records in the Court of Appeals were destroyed, and neither party sought to have them reconstructed. In contrast, the records in the lower court remained

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case arose from an application for the registration of a parcel of land situated in Davao, originally filed on August 6, 1935.
• The Director of Lands, acting as oppositor, filed an amended opposition on August 4, 1939, challenging the registration.
• After due proceedings and trial in the Court of First Instance of Davao, a judgment was rendered on December 12, 1939, ordering the registration of the land as described in the petitioner’s application.
• The Director of Lands appealed this decision, and on April 8, 1940, the bill of exceptions and evidence were forwarded to the Court of Appeals.

Disruption and Subsequent Developments

• The records of the case in the Court of Appeals were destroyed during the battle for the liberation of Manila.
• Neither party sought the reconstitution of the appellate records in the Court of Appeals.
• The records in the Court of First Instance of Davao remained intact, prompting the petitioner to move on April 10, 1948, for the issuance of a decree of registration.
• The petitioner argued that the failure of the Director of Lands to reconstitute the appellate records rendered the appeal inactive, thereby making the pre-war judgment final.
• Despite objections from the Director of Lands, the Court of First Instance overruled the opposition and, on July 6, 1946, ordered the issuance of the decree in favor of the petitioner.

Procedural Posture Leading to the Supreme Court's Involvement

• The Director of Lands appealed the order for the issuance of the decree to the Court of Appeals.
• Since the questions raised in the appeal were purely legal in nature, the case was certified to the Supreme Court for its decision.
• The central question involved the finality of a judgment rendered before the war in a case pending appeal, specifically whether such judgment becomes final due to the failure to ask for the reconstitution of judicial records within the prescribed period.

Issue:

Central Issue

• Whether a pre-war judgment rendered in a case pending appeal becomes final solely because the appellant (Director of Lands) failed to request reconstitution of the appellate records within the legally prescribed time period.

Subsidiary Issues

• Whether the duty to initiate the reconstitution of appellate records rests solely on the appellant or upon both the appellant and the appellee.
• What is the legal consequence of failing to reconstitute the records, especially in light of the statutory provisions of section 29 of Act 3110.
• Whether the omission to act on reconstitution implies a waiver of the right to enforce the favorable judgment.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)