Case Digest (G.R. No. 55488)
Facts:
Marciana Dapin and Adriano Malmis, G.R. No. 55488. May 15, 1992, the Supreme Court Third Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent trial judge to approve their record on appeal after the trial court disapproved the record as filed out of time.On August 2, 1979 the private respondents, heirs of Monica Pocong, filed a complaint for partition with prayer for damages against petitioners, alleging that Marciana Dapin wrongfully deprived Monica Pocong of her share in a 23.5974-hectare parcel originally titled in the name of Felix Dapin. After pretrial the parties stipulated to several facts about title history, planting of coconuts, and the deaths of Felix (circa 1960/1965) and Monica (1975), and that Marciana had executed an affidavit of adjudication resulting in issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9,411 in 1974.
Several hearings were postponed at petitioners’ instance; the trial court reset the case to September 7, 1979 and warned that nonappearance by petitioners’ counsel could lead to submission of the case on the evidence already adduced. Counsel did not appear on September 7, 1979, and the court entered an order treating the case as submitted for decision. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on September 26, 1979 which the trial court denied on November 9, 1979.
The trial court rendered judgment on April 22, 1980 granting partition and damages in favor of the private respondents, ruling that Monica Pocong was entitled to one-half of Felix Dapin’s estate and that Marciana’s self-adjudication affidavit was void. The private respondents moved for execution pending appeal on April 24, 1980; petitioners received a copy of the decision on May 13, 1980. Petitioners did not appear at the May 30, 1980 hearing on execution; the trial court granted execution that day.
On June 2, 1980 new counsel filed a motion for new trial which the trial court denied on June 6, 1980. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal on June 13, 1980 but the record on appeal was lodged only on June 17, 1980. The private respondents moved to deny the appeal as late, asserting the motion for new trial was pro forma and therefore did not suspend the appeal period; on July 25, 1980 the trial court granted the motion to deny appeal and disapproved the record as filed out of time.
Petitioners then filed the ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petitioners’ motion for new trial merely pro forma such that its filing did not suspend the running of the period to perfect an appeal?
- If the motion was pro forma, are the petitioners entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to approve thei...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)