Title
Aquino vs. De Guzman
Case
G.R. No. L-5763
Decision Date
Sep 28, 1953
Petitioner sought to appeal jointly tried civil and land registration cases. Court dismissed land case appeal due to late bond filing. SC ruled oversight excusable, allowed appeal for equity.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-5763)

Facts:

  1. Case Background: The case involves Eugenio Aquino (petitioner) seeking to compel Judge Eulogio F. de Guzman of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan to allow his appeal in Land Registration Case No. 302, G.L.R.O. Record No. 1173. The case was tried jointly with Civil Case No. 10965, as both cases involved the same parties and attorneys.

  2. Joint Trial and Decision: A single decision was rendered in both cases, with judgment against the petitioner. On June 19, 1951, the petitioner’s attorney filed a notice of appeal and a joint record on appeal for both cases, along with an appeal bond of P60.

  3. Appeal Bond Issue: The appeal bond was receipted for in Civil Case No. 10965 on June 30, 1951. However, no bond was deposited for the appeal in the land registration case until August 1, 1951.

  4. Court’s Action: The court approved the record on appeal but only allowed the appeal in the civil case. The appeal in the land registration case was dismissed due to the late filing of the bond.

  5. Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner argued that since the notice of appeal and the record on appeal were filed jointly for both cases, the certification of the record on appeal in the civil case should also cover the registration case.

Issue:

  1. Whether the joint filing of the notice of appeal and record on appeal for both cases makes the two cases inseparable, thereby excusing the need for a separate appeal bond in the land registration case.
  2. Whether the court erred in dismissing the appeal in the land registration case due to the late filing of the appeal bond.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. While the court held that the joint filing of the notice of appeal and record on appeal did not merge the two cases or excuse the need for separate appeal bonds, it found that the circumstances warranted the exercise of discretion to allow the appeal in the land registration case. The Court granted the petition, allowing the appeal to proceed, but ordered the petitioner to pay the costs.

Ratio:

  1. Separate Nature of Cases: The physical embodiment of both records on appeal into a single document does not merge the two cases or relieve the petitioner of the obligation to file separate appeal bonds. Each case retains its distinct identity.

  2. Discretionary Relief: Despite the technical requirement of separate appeal bonds, the Court found that the civil case was entirely dependent on the land registration case. The issues in both cases were inextricably linked, and the joint trial and filing of the record on appeal suggested that the oversight in filing the bond was excusable.

  3. Excusable Oversight: The Court recognized that the petitioner’s attorney or client may have overlooked the need for separate bonds due to the intertwined nature of the cases. This constituted an excusable oversight, justifying the exercise of discretion to allow the appeal.

  4. Equitable Considerations: The Court emphasized that the civil case could not proceed without resolving the land registration case, as ownership of the property was central to both cases. Thus, allowing the appeal in the land registration case was necessary to ensure justice and fairness.


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.