Case Digest (G.R. No. L-718)
Facts:
Juliana Etorma, Rosario Indefenso and Gregorio Salumbides v. Lucila Ravelo and the Director of Lands, G.R. No. 718, March 24, 1947, the Supreme Court En Banc, Feria, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari on July 13, 1946, attacking a judgment of the Court of Appeals promulgated December 22, 1942, which had affirmed a decision of the Court of First Instance of Tayabas against them. The subject of the litigation was the validity of a free patent allegedly issued by the Governor-General under authority of an Act of the United States Congress (July 1, 1902); the Director of Lands was a party. Petitioners contended that the judgment was void because it had been rendered during the Japanese occupation and because the trial court’s decision lacked findings on alleged fraud while the Court of Appeals purportedly made its own findings without hearing appellants. They prayed that the CFI be ordered to send up the records and that their appeal be considered by the Supreme Court.
This Court initially dismissed the petition in a minute resolution of August 14, 1946, but later issued the present resolution explaining its grounds: it held that judgments rendered by Philippine courts during the Japanese occupation are valid and binding under the doctrine adopted in Co Kim Cham v. Valdez Tan Keh and Dizon, 75 Phil. 113; petitioners’ later allegation that they had refused to submit to the occupiers was not pleaded below and, in any event, the acts of their attorney (including a motion for additional time to file a motion for reconsideration) constituted express submission to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals (citing Section 21, Rule 127). The Court rejected the contention that the subject matter (a free patent) was political; it characterized statutes regulating free patents as municipal laws and judgments applying them as nonpolitical judicial acts. The petition was denied. Several justices concurred; separate dissents were filed by Justices Perfecto and Hilado (joine...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Were the petitioners precluded from attacking the Court of Appeals judgment on the ground of implied or express submission to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals during the Japanese occupation?
- Are judgments rendered by Philippine courts continued under the Japanese occupation valid and binding when they apply municipal laws (e.g., free-patent statutes), or are such judgments null because the occupying regimes were not legitimate governments?
- Did the Court of Appeals’ alleged making of factual findings without affording appellants an opportunity to be heard constitute r...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)