Facts:

• Petitioners: Galileo D. Sibala and Anthony Chan.
• Respondents: Hon. Vicente Bullecer (Judge), Aurora de Guzman, Paz de Guzman, and Nicolas de Guzman.
• Origin: Cadastral Case No. N-15, L.R.C. Record No. 447, where Lots Nos. 167 and 182 were adjudicated in favor of Sibala.
• Decrees issued: Lot 167 on June 27, 1966; Lot 182 on October 26, 1965.
• Private respondents filed a motion for reconsideration on December 8, 1965, alleging fraud.
• Motions for reconsideration: Amended Motion on September 29, 1966, and Supplemental Amended Motion on December 9, 1966.
• Respondent Judge treated these motions as a Petition for Review under Section 38 of Act 496.
• Anthony Chan was included as a respondent due to his purchase of the lots from Sibala.
• Sibala filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 24, 1966, citing lack of jurisdiction and other grounds.
• Motion to Dismiss was denied on March 18, 1968; subsequent motions were also denied.
• An Amended Motion for Reconsideration was denied on September 6, 1969.
• Petitioners sought certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed it.
• Petitioners then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision.
• The Court ruled that the petition for review was filed on time, despite the late payment of the filing fee.
...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court found the petition for review valid despite the late filing fee payment.
• The original motions for reconsideration were treated as petitions for review, justifying the delay in payment.
• The private respondents acted ...continue reading