G.R. No. L-2893 - DECEMBER 1949 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-2893December 31, 1949 Agripino Jimenez, et al. vs. Eusebio F. Ramos G.R. No. L-2720December 31, 1949 Hemandas Udharam vs. rafael Dinglasan G.R. No. L-2529December 31, 1949 J. A. Sison vs. Board of Accountancy, et al. G.R. No. L-867December 29, 1949 Antonio del Rosario, et al. vs. Carlos Sandico, et al. G.R. No. L-3261December 29, 1949 Hector G. Palileo vs. Fred Ruiz Castro G.R. No. L-3039December 29, 1949 Victoria Reynoso, et al. vs. Vicente Santiago, et al. G.R. No. L-2942December 29, 1949 Silvestra Coquia, et al. vs. Rodolfo Baltazar, et al. G.R. No. L-2850December 29, 1949 Ong Kim Pan, et al. vs. Francisco Geronimo, et al. G.R. No. L-2842December 29, 1949 Jose T. Valmonte, et al. vs. Mariano Nable, et al. G.R. No. L-2752December 29, 1949 Urbano Olavario, et al. vs. Juan T. Villanueva G.R. No. L-2767December 29, 1949 Irineo Facundo vs. Valentin R. Lim, et al. G.R. No. L-2718December 29, 1949 Irineo Facundo vs. Jose M. Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-2717December 29, 1949 Irineo Facundo vs. Bienvenido A. Tan, et al. G.R. No. L-2678December 29, 1949 Antonio C. Aragon vs. Marcos Jorge G.R. No. L-2634December 29, 1949 Pacific Importing and Exporting Co. vs. Catalino Tinio, et al. G.R. No. L-2570December 29, 1949 Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. vs. Rural Transit Employees Association, et al. G.R. No. L-2404December 29, 1949 Fabian B. S. Abellera vs. Feliciano Garcia G.R. No. L-2360December 29, 1949 Gavino Aldamiz vs. Court of First Instance of Mindoro, et al. G.R. No. L-2020December 29, 1949 La Orden de Padres Benedictinos de Filipinas vs. Philippine Trust Company G.R. No. L-1965December 29, 1949 Eduardo Osorio, et al. vs. Marina Osorio, et al. G.R. No. L-1877December 29, 1949 H. P. Hoskyns vs. National City Bank of New York, et al. G.R. No. L-1349December 29, 1949 H. D. Kneedler vs. Simon Paterno, et al. G.R. No. L-1173December 29, 1949 Alejandro Andres, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-2936December 23, 1949 Tide Water Associated Oil Company vs. Victory Employees and Laborers' Association, et al. G.R. No. L-2802December 23, 1949 Rosa Pascual, et al. vs. Bienvenido A. Tan, et al. G.R. No. L-2722December 15, 1949 Nicolas Lizares & Co., Inc. vs. Bievenido Tan G.R. No. L-3521December 13, 1949 Nacionalista Party, et al. vs. Commission on Election G.R. No. L-2672December 13, 1949 University of Santo Tomas vs. Buenaventura Ocampo, et al. G.R. No. L-2354December 13, 1949 Alfonso Araneta vs. Marta Cui vda. de Sanson, et al. G.R. No. L-1811December 11, 1949 Gregorio Balveran, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-3474December 7, 1949 Nacionalista Party, et al. vs. Vicente de Vera G.R. No. L-3452December 7, 1949 Nacionalista Party vs. Felix Angelo Bautista, et al. G.R. No. L-2758December 7, 1949 Claro J. Gil, et al. vs. F. Imperial Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-2652December 7, 1949 Julia Lorenzo, et al. vs. Municipal Council of Naic, Cavite, et al. G.R. No. L-2593December 7, 1949 Felix Azotes vs. Manuel Blanco, et al. G.R. No. L-2580December 7, 1949 Pablo Ricohermoso vs. Juan P. Enriquez, et al. G.R. No. L-2466December 7, 1949 People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Tuazon G.R. No. L-2836December 6, 1949 Engracia G. de Ponce vs. Alicia Vasquez Sagario G.R. No. L-2502December 1, 1949 Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Norte vs. Ceferino de Los Santos, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Agripino Jimenez, et al. vs. Eusebio F. Ramos Hemandas Udharam vs. rafael Dinglasan J. A. Sison vs. Board of Accountancy, et al. Antonio del Rosario, et al. vs. Carlos Sandico, et al. Hector G. Palileo vs. Fred Ruiz Castro Victoria Reynoso, et al. vs. Vicente Santiago, et al. Silvestra Coquia, et al. vs. Rodolfo Baltazar, et al. Ong Kim Pan, et al. vs. Francisco Geronimo, et al. Jose T. Valmonte, et al. vs. Mariano Nable, et al. Urbano Olavario, et al. vs. Juan T. Villanueva Irineo Facundo vs. Valentin R. Lim, et al. Irineo Facundo vs. Jose M. Santos, et al. Irineo Facundo vs. Bienvenido A. Tan, et al. Antonio C. Aragon vs. Marcos Jorge Pacific Importing and Exporting Co. vs. Catalino Tinio, et al. Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. vs. Rural Transit Employees Association, et al. Fabian B. S. Abellera vs. Feliciano Garcia Gavino Aldamiz vs. Court of First Instance of Mindoro, et al. La Orden de Padres Benedictinos de Filipinas vs. Philippine Trust Company Eduardo Osorio, et al. vs. Marina Osorio, et al. H. P. Hoskyns vs. National City Bank of New York, et al. H. D. Kneedler vs. Simon Paterno, et al. Alejandro Andres, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Tide Water Associated Oil Company vs. Victory Employees and Laborers' Association, et al. Rosa Pascual, et al. vs. Bienvenido A. Tan, et al. Nicolas Lizares & Co., Inc. vs. Bievenido Tan Nacionalista Party, et al. vs. Commission on Election University of Santo Tomas vs. Buenaventura Ocampo, et al. Alfonso Araneta vs. Marta Cui vda. de Sanson, et al. Gregorio Balveran, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Nacionalista Party, et al. vs. Vicente de Vera Nacionalista Party vs. Felix Angelo Bautista, et al. Claro J. Gil, et al. vs. F. Imperial Reyes, et al. Julia Lorenzo, et al. vs. Municipal Council of Naic, Cavite, et al. Felix Azotes vs. Manuel Blanco, et al. Pablo Ricohermoso vs. Juan P. Enriquez, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Tuazon Engracia G. de Ponce vs. Alicia Vasquez Sagario Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Norte vs. Ceferino de Los Santos, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2893 December 31, 1949
AGRIPINO JIMENEZ and SOFIA RESTAR,petitioners,
vs.
EUSEBIO F. RAMOS,respondent.
Cecilio Maneja for petitioner.
Miguel M. Manguera for respondent.
MORAN,C.J.:
This is a petition forcertiorarifiled by Agripino Jimenez and Sofia Restar to set aside a writ of execution issued by the Court of First Instance of Marinduque in civil case No. 704 of that court which has been instituted by respondents Hermogenes Palomares and Dorotea Ricafrente to recover a parcel of land from said petitioners.
Judgment was rendered in said case against petitioners who received notice thereof on December 30, 1948. On January 11, 1949, a motion was filed by them to amend some findings of facts contained in the decision. On January 28, 1949, a motion for new trial was filed upon the ground of newly-discovered evidence and that the decision was contrary to facts and to law. This motion contains no specification of the supposed new evidence discovered nor of the effect of such evidence upon the result of the case. Neither does it contain a specification of the conclusions stated in the decision that are alleged to be contrary to evidence and to law. It is, therefore, a motionpro forma.
On February 14, 1949, a writ of execution was issued by the respondent court upon the ground that the judgment had become final and executory. And on March 1, 1949, a motion for new trial was filed containing a specification of the portions of the decision that were alleged to be contrary to evidence or to law.lawphi1.net
We believe and so hold that the writ of execution issued on February 14, 1949, was valid because petitioners were notified of the decision on December 30, 1948, and therefore, said decision had become final and executory on January 29, 1949. The motion of January 11, 1949, not being a motion to set aside the judgment rendered but merely to amend some findings of facts contained therein, could not suspend the period of appeal which expired on January 29, 1949. The motion for new trial filed on January 28, 1949, could not interrupt said period, it being apro formamotion containing no specification of the supposed newly-discovered evidence nor of the findings or conclusions of the judgment that were alleged to be contrary to evidence or to law (Valdezvs. Jugo, 2 Off. Gaz., 489, May, 1943; 1 Alverovs.De la Rosa, 42 off. Gaz., p. 3161).2
The only motion for new trial which could have interrupted the period for appeal had it been presented within that period is the motion of March 1, 1949, which was filed in accordance with the requirements of the rules. But the judgment had already become final and executory on January 29, 1949, and was ordered executed on February 14, 1949.
The petition is denied, with costs against the petitioners.
Ozaeta, Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, and Torres, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 74 Phil., 49.
2 76 Phil., 428.