Title
Buenaventura vs. Ramos
Case
G.R. No. 18034
Decision Date
Dec 8, 1921
Estate administrator's motion to sell property opposed; court granted sale, appeal perfected within legal timeframe despite procedural delays.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 18034)

Facts:

  1. Administration of the Estate: The case involves the estate of Juan Buenaventura, with Sinforoso Buenaventura as the administrator.
  2. Motion to Sell Property: On January 4, 1921, the administrator filed a motion seeking permission to sell a parcel of land (a fishery) belonging to the estate.
  3. Opposition and Denial: On February 5, 1921, an opposition to the motion was filed. The lower court denied the motion on February 7, 1921.
  4. Renewed Motion and Grant: On February 21, 1921, the administrator renewed the motion to sell the land. Despite opposition filed on February 24, 1921, the court granted the motion on March 2, 1921, authorizing the sale.
  5. Exception and Motion for Reconsideration: On March 14, 1921, an exception to the court's order was filed, along with a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court's authorization was illegal under sections 714, 716, 717, and 718 of Act No. 190.
  6. Further Motions and Confirmation of Sale: On March 15, 1921, the administrator filed another motion to execute a deed of sale in favor of Timoteo del Rosario. The court denied the motion for reconsideration on March 19, 1921. On the same day, the administrator filed a petition to confirm the sale to del Rosario. The court confirmed the sale on March 30, 1921.
  7. Appeal Process: On April 2, 1921, the appellants filed an exception and motion for reconsideration of the March 2, 19, and 30 orders, requesting the court to fix the appeal bond at P1,000. The court denied the motion on April 8, 1921, and fixed the bond at P1,000. The bill of exceptions and appeal bond were filed on April 28, 1921.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Timing of Appeal Perfection: Under sections 781 and 783 of Act No. 190, an appeal in special proceedings must be perfected by filing an application within twenty days after the entry of judgment and presenting an appeal bond.
  2. Effect of Motions for Reconsideration: The time for perfecting the appeal is suspended while motions for reconsideration are pending. In this case, the motions for reconsideration were not resolved until April 8, 1921.
  3. Role of the Appeal Bond: The appeal cannot be perfected until the court fixes and approves the appeal bond. The appellants could not present the bond until the court fixed its amount on April 8, 1921.
  4. Reasonable Time for Perfection: The appellants filed the bill of exceptions and appeal bond on April 28, 1921, which was within a reasonable time after the court fixed the bond amount.
  5. No Delay Attributable to Appellants: The delay in fixing and approving the bond was not attributable to the appellants, as they had no control over the court's actions.

The Court emphasized that the law does not impose a strict timeline for the court to fix the bond amount or approve it. Therefore, the appeal was deemed perfected in accordance with the law and rules.


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.