A.C. No. 8197 - OCTOBER 1946 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.C. No. 8197October 31, 1946 Director of Lands vs. Marcelino Adoralble, et al. G.R. No. L-827October 31, 1946 Mateo Peralta vs. Romualdo Solon G.R. No. L-49200October 30, 1946 People of the Philippines vs. Buenaventura Abad G.R. No. L-283October 30, 1946 People of the Philippines vs. Silvestre Carillo G.R. No. L-49887October 28, 1946 People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Tolentino G.R. No. L-64October 28, 1946 People of the Philippines vs. Miguel M. Moreno G.R. No. L-658October 25, 1946 Gabriela Viuda de Mendoza vs. Greorio Palacio G.R. No. L-387October 25, 1946 Balbina Mendoza vs. Paciano Dizon G.R. No. L-337October 25, 1946 People of the Philippines vs. Claro Feliciano, et al. G.R. No. L-708October 24, 1946 Severino Manotok vs. Milagros S. Legaspi, et al. G.R. No. L-832October 14, 1946 Ethel Case, et al. vs. Fernando Jugo, et al. G.R. No. L-47673October 10, 1946 Koppel (Philippines), Inc. vs. Alfredo L. Yatco G.R. No. L-425October 10, 1946 Severina Bonoan de Yabut vs. Juan Ventura, et al. G.R. No. L-608October 7, 1946 Procopio Beltran vs. Pompeyo Diaz, et al. G.R. No. L-142October 5, 1946 Ursu Luangco, et al. vs. Provincial Warden of Tacloban, Leyte Igmidio Lagera vs. Provincial Warden of Tacloban, Leyte G.R. No. L-264October 4, 1946 Vicente Singson Encarnacion vs. Jacinto Baldomar, et al. G.R. No. L-982October 2, 1946 Francisco C. dela Rama vs. People's Court G.R. No. L-879October 2, 1946 Eduardo Gomez vs. Director of Prisons G.R. No. L-600October 1, 1946 Soledad Peña de Luz vs. Court of First Instance of Tacloban, Leyte, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Director of Lands vs. Marcelino Adoralble, et al. Mateo Peralta vs. Romualdo Solon People of the Philippines vs. Buenaventura Abad People of the Philippines vs. Silvestre Carillo People of the Philippines vs. Alejandro Tolentino People of the Philippines vs. Miguel M. Moreno Gabriela Viuda de Mendoza vs. Greorio Palacio Balbina Mendoza vs. Paciano Dizon People of the Philippines vs. Claro Feliciano, et al. Severino Manotok vs. Milagros S. Legaspi, et al. Ethel Case, et al. vs. Fernando Jugo, et al. Koppel (Philippines), Inc. vs. Alfredo L. Yatco Severina Bonoan de Yabut vs. Juan Ventura, et al. Procopio Beltran vs. Pompeyo Diaz, et al. Ursu Luangco, et al. vs. Provincial Warden of Tacloban, Leyte Igmidio Lagera vs. Provincial Warden of Tacloban, Leyte Vicente Singson Encarnacion vs. Jacinto Baldomar, et al. Francisco C. dela Rama vs. People's Court Eduardo Gomez vs. Director of Prisons Soledad Peña de Luz vs. Court of First Instance of Tacloban, Leyte, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.C. No. 8197 October 2, 1946
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS,petitioner,
vs.
MARCELINO ADORABLE, ET AL.,claimants;
MIGUEL PEÑARANDA,claimant-appellant;
PURIFICACION SOLINAP ET AL.,claimants-appellees.
Evidente, Butalid and Peñaranda for claimant-appellant.
Manuel F. Zamora for claimants-appellees.
R E S O L U T I O N
PERFECTO,J.:
At the reconstitution of the above-entitled case, claimant-appellant presented copies of several papers, exhibits, pleadings, motions and orders, including copy of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, record on appeal, and the printed brief of said claimant-appellant who, at the time he filed his motion for reconstitution on February 26, 1946, was under the impression that the case, which was pending decision in the Court of Appeals when the war broke out, remained unacted upon by said court until the motion for reconstitution was filed.
On June 25, 1946, Attorney Manuel F. Zamora, for the claimants and appellees, acting under the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility as becomes a deserving member of the bar, instead of taking advantage of claimant-appellant's ignorance of what really happened in the Court of Appeals, informed this court that the case had been decided in favor of said claimant and appellant by the Court of Appeals, filing to said effect the copy of the decision promulgated on September 9, 1942, sent to him by said court, to save the appellant the trouble of waiting for the reconstitution of this case and this tribunal the trouble of deciding again a case already decided.
Upon being informed of the statements of Attorney Zamora, claimant-appellant's attorneys filed a petition with the commissioner for reconstitution to make a report to this Court that the records be declared reconstituted, together with the decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 9, 1942, and that said records be remanded to the lower court for execution of the decision.lâwphi1.net
The court resolved to declare that the case is reconstituted and to order that copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on September 9, 1942, be sent to the lower court for execution. This resolution is being adopted not without making of record that the considered as an example worthy to be remembered by all members of the bar.
Paras, Pablo and Padilla, JJ., concur.