Case Summary (G.R. No. 152833)
Antecedents of the Case
The petitioners filed a complaint in December 1984 against Edilberto dela Vega and Francisco Aplomina for partition, accounting, and damages regarding Lot No. 1827, asserting their rights as heirs. The complaint details the genealogy and relationships of the deceased Victoriano Velarde and the subsequent heirs, highlighting disputes over the inheritance and jurisdictional issues surrounding the property.
Trial Court Proceedings
The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners in June 1993, ordering the partition of Lot No. 1827 into three equal portions among the heirs. The trial court's silence on the accounting request became a significant point of contention, as the petitioners sought enforcement of the decision without the respondent filing a timely appeal.
Respondent’s Attempts to Appeal
After the trial court issued a judgment, Francisco Aplomina filed a notice of appeal following a delay, citing the suspension of his original counsel, Atty. J.T. Barrera. The trial court initially denied his notice of appeal for being filed out of time but later granted the motion for reconsideration, asserting that Aplomina was deprived of legal representation during the suspension period of his attorney.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
The petitioners contested the trial court's decision to allow the appeal, claiming that it was in violation of the mandatory period for filing appeals. The Court of Appeals subsequently ruled in favor of Francisco Aplomina, allowing the appeal to proceed, which prompted the petitioners to file for certiorari and prohibition, arguing that the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion.
Jurisdictional Issues and Legal Principles
The Supreme Court established that the failure to perfect an appeal within the prescribed period is jurisdictional and renders the lower court's decision final and executory. The rules stipulate that service on counsel equates to notice to the client. The respondent's argument that he was unaware of the trial court's decision due to counsel negligence was deemed inadequate.
Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court granted the petition, declaring that the decisions of the Court of Appeals were null and void due to the lack of a perfected appeal. The ruling emphasized that Aplomina
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 152833)
Case Citation
- 487 Phil. 102
- Supreme Court of the Philippines, Second Division
- G.R. No. 131287
- December 9, 2004
Parties Involved
- Petitioners: Prospero Balgami, Flora Balaos, Lorenza Balaos Dador, Anacleto Balaos, Adelfa Balaos Elerio, Pablito Aplomina, Florita Elerio, Arsenio, Lilia Elerio Gutierrez, Hali Andres
- Respondents: Court of Appeals, Francisco Aplomina
Nature of the Case
- This case is a petition for certiorari and prohibition under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, with a request for a preliminary injunction aimed at nullifying the resolutions issued by the Court of Appeals on July 3, 1997, and September 18, 1997, in CA-G.R. CV No. 56891.
Antecedents
- On December 10, 1984, the petitioners filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City against Edilberto dela Vega and Francisco Aplomina for partition, accounting, and damages regarding a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 1827, measuring 102,692 square meters.
- The petitioners traced the ownership of the land to Victoriano Velarde, who died intestate in 1937, leaving behind three daughters who are now deceased. The family tree of inheritance is detailed:
- Donesia Velarde Aplomina, married to Domingo Aplomina, left children Federico, Sotera, and Francisco.
- Felicidad Velarde Balgami, married to Donesio Balgami, left children Prospero and Angelina.
- Jovita Velarde Balaos, married to Mateo Balaos Dador, had children Anacleto and Adelfa.
- The petitioners discovered in 1975 that the land bordered the provinces of Iloilo and Capiz and had it surveyed, only to find that Francisco Aplomina had r