Case Summary (G.R. No. 428)
Delivery of Record and Opposition Procedure
Under Arts. 1062 and 1067, Doña Francisca received the record on April 13 for a 15-day review. She lodged her opposition on April 25. A mandatory conference under Art. 1069 failed to produce agreement, prompting the court on May 4 to convert the dispute into a declarative action under Art. 1071.
Time Limits for Formulating the Declarative Demand
By providencia of May 7, the court allotted 15 days for Doña Francisca to file her demand, later extending the term by seven days at her request. On June 5 she sought to suspend proceedings pending the coming into force of a new Procedural Code. The court denied suspension on June 15, ruling that her deadline had expired and she had forfeited her right to institute the action.
Attempts to Challenge Procedural Orders
On June 22, Doña Francisca petitioned for reform of the June 15 auto. A justice of the peace designated to sit in the First Instance court denied relief, advising appeal under Art. 365. Her June 29 appeal was rejected as untimely under Art. 363. Thereupon, on July 16, the court approved the partition.
Petition under Act No. 75 and Scope of “Mistake” Relief
While her appeal was pending, Doña Francisca invoked Act No. 75, alleging judicial mistakes—lack of umpire jurisdiction and misapplication of appeal deadlines—caused the June 22 and July 16 orders to be void. The Supreme Court found Act 75’s remedy inapplicable to judicial errors of law or questions of jurisdiction, which are correctible by appeal, not through this summary process.
Party’s Mistake of Law and Inapplicability of Relief
The Court held that relief under Act 75 cannot extend to a party’s legal misapprehension. Civil Code Art. 2 and established principle preclude excusing ignorance of statutory appeal periods. Granting such relief would subvert normal appellate procedure and encourage interminable litigation.
Court’s Authority to Fix and Enforce Submission Deadlines
The Court affirmed its unquestioned po
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 428)
Facts of the Case
- Don Clemente Zulueta died in Iloilo in 1900, leaving two sole heirs under his will: Don Jose Zulueta and his sister, Dona Francisca Zulueta.
- Don Jose instituted voluntary testamentary proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo for the division of the estate under article 1053 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil.
- Three auditors were appointed: one nominated by Don Jose, one by Dona Francisca, and a third umpire chosen by common accord.
- The two party‐nominated auditors disagreed and each filed a separate report.
Reports and Initial Partition Proceedings
- The auditor umpire’s report, filed March 29, 1901, wholly adopted the report of Don Jose’s nominee.
- Pursuant to articles 1062 and 1067 LEC, on April 13 the record and umpire’s report were delivered to Dona Francisca for examination (15‐day period).
- On April 25, Dona Francisca filed her opposition to the umpire’s report.
- A meeting under article 1069 LEC produced no agreement between the siblings.
Order to Institute Declarative Action
- By providencia of May 4, the court directed that the procedure for declarative actions be followed and that Dona Francisca be given the record to formulate her demand under article 1071 LEC.
- On May 7, the court fixed a 15‐day term for Dona Francisca to file her demand; this term was later extended by seven days on her petition.
Petitions and Autos Concerning Appeal Periods
- June 5: Dona Francisca petitioned to suspend proceedings until the new Code of Procedure became operative; the court denied this request on June 15 and declared that her right to institute the declarative action had lapsed.
- June 22: She petitioned for reform of the June 15 auto; Acting Judge Cirilo Mapa denied the petition, holding that the proper remedy was by appeal under article 365 LEC.
- June 29: Dona Francisca attempted to appeal the June 22 auto; the regular judge declined to admit it as not filed within the three‐day period prescribe