G.R. No. 209078 - Villasana y Cabahug vs. People

A joint trial was held at the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Capiz involving a civil suit for ownership and a land registration proceeding concerning Lots 2 and 3, Plan Psu-129122, located in Dumalag.
On February 20, 1965, the trial court rendered a single decision in which private respondents (Federico Mendoza and Matilde Falcis) lost their bid to establish ownership over the lots.
The respondents received a copy of the decision on March 6, 1965.

On the same day the respondents received the decision (March 6, 1965), the petitioners (Eufracio Fagtanac and Dolores Advincula) filed a motion to correct the dispositive part of the decision by indicating that the lots were located in Dumalag rather than in Dao.
The Court of First Instance granted this motion by an order dated March 17, 1965; the respondents received a copy of that order on March 25, 1965.

On April 14, 1965, after receiving the amended decision order, the private respondents filed a motion to reconsider the joint decision as amended.
The trial court denied the motion to reconsider on May 8, 1965; respondents received this order on May 17, 1965.
On May 18, 1965, the respondents filed their notice of appeal, accompanied by an appeal bond.
On May 25, 1965, two separate records on appeal were filed: one pertaining to the civil ownership case and another to the land registration case.
The two records on appeal were approved on July 7, 1965, with petitioners receiving a copy of the approval on August 6, 1965.

On petitioners’ motion dated August 7 (filed August 9), the trial court issued an order on September 22, 1965, directing the respondents in the land registration case to amend their record on appeal by:

Inserting a specification that the appeal was limited in scope to affect only the controverted lots;
Incorporating the order of general default;
Including the July 7, 1965 order approving the record on appeal;
Adding the respondents’ motion of August 7, 1965 (filed on August 9, 1965);
Attaching the trial court’s order of September 22, 1965.

The respondents received notice of this order on September 29, 1965.
No action was taken by the respondents to redraft or supplement the record on appeal as required by the order.

On January 3, 1966, petitioners moved in the CFI to dismiss the appeal on the ground of failure to prosecute, citing that over three months had elapsed without compliance to the September 22 order.
The CFI, having lost jurisdiction, denied the petitioners’ dismissal motion on February 16, 1966, suggesting instead that the issue be raised before the Court of Appeals.
On July 7, 1966 (record received on July 11, 1966), petitioners filed a motion in the Court of Appeals for dismissal of the appeals, arguing that they were perfected out of time, were not diligently prosecuted, and the records on appeal did not comply with the Rules of Court.
The respondents opposed this motion.
The Court of Appeals denied the motion on September 16, 1966, and its reconsideration was further denied on November 2, 1966.
A communication from the respondents’ counsel on July 13, 1966, to the Clerk at the CFI indicated continued requests for the forwarding and proper certification of the records on appeal.
The Clerk certified on July 13, 1966 that the records on appeal were pending completion of the supporting documents.
The records on appeal were finally forwarded to the Court of Appeals on July 25, 1966 and received on July 27, 1966.
Notably, the redrafted record on appeal in the land registration case, as mandated by the September 22 order, was never submitted, leaving that record incomplete.

Petitioners brought the case before this Court through a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, coupled with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction.
Their prayer was to compel the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeals and to refrain from further action regarding the respondents’ appeals.
A cease-and-desist order was issued on February 23, 1967, pending the final resolution on the merits.

Whether the respondents complied with the trial court’s order (dated September 22, 1965) to amend the record on appeal in the land registration case by inserting the required specifications and documents.
Whether the failure to redraft and include the mandated information renders the record on appeal incomplete and defective.

Whether the respondents, as appellants, fulfilled their duty to diligently prosecute the appeal, given that significant delays and lack of appropriate actions undermined the appellate process.
Whether the delay in elevating the records on appeal to the Court of Appeals and the failure to secure the proper approval and certification constituted grounds for dismissal.

Whether the records on appeal, as submitted by the respondents, met the requirements of Section 10 and Section 7 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court regarding the verification of documents and certification of their correctness.
Whether the separate certification provided by the Clerk of the CFI, which was not attached to the records on appeal, sufficiently complied with the mandatory procedural rules.

Whether, in the exercise of its supervisory functions, this Court should direct the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeals for failure to prosecute and for submitting an incomplete record on appeal.
Whether the court’s intervention is justified to prevent further delay in the administration of justice.