Title
Guevara vs. Tuason and Co.
Case
G.R. No. 94
Decision Date
Oct 7, 1901
The court denies Guevara's appeal in a forcible entry case, ruling that his belief in the correctness of the lower court's judgment does not constitute a qualifying mistake under Act No. 75.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 94)

Facts:

  • Jose Emeterio Guevara is the petitioner; Tuason & Co. are the respondents.
  • A judgment was rendered against Guevara by the Court of Quiapo on December 13, 1898, in a forcible entry and detainer case.
  • Guevara was represented by an attorney who was notified of the judgment on December 22, 1898.
  • Guevara did not file an appeal, claiming the Court of Quiapo lacked jurisdiction as the property was in what is now Rizal Province, outside U.S. territory at that time.
  • He argued that judicial terms were suspended by a royal decree on July 26, 1898, until the Treaty of Paris was signed on December 10, 1898.
  • Guevara attributed his failure to appeal to an excusable accident due to significant changes in governance and legal orders.
  • The court noted that Guevara did not allege fraud or provide sufficient evidence for his inability to appeal.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court denied Guevara's petition to appeal the judgment from the Court of Quiapo.
  • The court ruled that Guevara's claims regarding jurisdiction and his fa...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court stated that merely claiming a mistake about jurisdiction does not justify failing to appeal.
  • For relief under Act No. 75, a party must show they were unable to appeal due to a mistake or excusable negligence.
  • Guevara's belief that the court lacked jurisdiction was not a valid excuse, as he did not prov...continue reading

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.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.