G.R. No. 42984 - Balmeo vs. Deveza

The case involves G.R. No. 42984, where Eriberto Balmeo is the plaintiff and appellee, and Segunda Deveza is the defendant and appellant.

The procedural history originates from civil case No. 3123 of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas, where the court ordered the parties to proceed with the partition of the properties pursuant to Section 184 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

After the parties’ failure to arrive at an agreement for the partition, the court intervened by appointing three competent commissioners.

The appointed commissioners submitted a written report recommending the apportionment and adjudication of the properties in dispute.

Following a hearing on the report—despite objections raised by counsel for Segunda Deveza—the court issued an order on July 11, 1934, approving the commissioners’ report and directing the partition accordingly.

Counsel for Segunda Deveza, upon being notified of the July 11 order on July 16, filed an exception the following day.

On July 24, 1934, counsel for Segunda Deveza filed a motion for a new hearing and for the suspension of the effect and running of the reglementary period for filing an appeal.

The motion asserted that the partition as proposed by the commissioners was contrary to law because properties no longer possessed by the parties were included and credits paid by Segunda Deveza were excluded.

The court subsequently suspended the running of the appeal period by issuing an order on July 24.

On August 27, 1934, the court denied the motion for a new hearing, and counsel for Segunda Deveza was notified on September 4.

On September 5, 1934, the attorney for Segunda Deveza filed an exception to the order denying the motion for new hearing and simultaneously filed a bill of exceptions, announcing the intent to appeal.

On October 22, 1934, the court entered an order disapproving the bill of exceptions.

The rationale was that the order referred to was considered unappealable, as per Section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Additionally, it was contended that the bill of exceptions was filed outside the reglementary period, based on a misunderstanding regarding which order was appealable.

A motion for reconsideration was filed, and the attorney for Segunda Deveza excepted to the court’s order denying the motion for reconsideration.

Ultimately, Segunda Deveza filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent judge to approve and certify the bill of exceptions.

It is emphasized that the bill of exceptions was filed in a timely manner and in accordance with the law, due largely to the court’s earlier order of suspension on July 24, which halted the running of the appeal period.

The misunderstanding arose when the counsel and the court incorrectly identified the appealable order, leading to the disapproval of the bill of exceptions.

Whether the bill of exceptions was filed within the legal reglementary period, considering the suspension order issued by the court.
Whether the disapproval of the bill of exceptions was correct, especially given the misunderstanding regarding which order—the July 11 order versus the August 27 order—was subject to appeal.
Whether the petition for a writ of mandamus, requesting the trial judge to approve and certify the bill of exceptions, should be granted.
Whether the lapse of forty-two days following notification of the order denying the motion for reconsideration constitutes abandonment or negligence amounting to estoppel by laches.