Zulueta v. Zulueta G.R. No.

428

Heirs of the late Don Clemente Zulueta nominated each auditors and a separate one as auditor umpire.
The two auditors nominated by the heirs failed to agree and filed separate reports. The auditor umpire
had his side with the auditor of the plaintiff. The opposition was filed by the defendant. The court
directed actions to be followed and forwarded to Doña Francisca for her to create her demands due to
disagreements of both parties. On May 7, on plaintiff’s demand, to change the 15 days to a 7 days within
which she must express her demands. The defendant filed another petition to suspend the proceedings
until the new Code of Procedure takes effect on June 5, citing it is more advantageous on her rights. The
court denied the petition as the term for filing has expired. Reason cited by defendant is her mistake as
to the term prescribed which prevented her from filing an opposition for auto of June 22.

ISSUE: Whether or not Doña Francisca is entitled to relief against the consequences of her failure to
interpose her appeal against the auto of June 22 within the period fixed by the law.

HELD: No. It is shown that the party acted with mistake of law and ignorance and misconception of the
provisions of the law regarding the time within which the appeal should be submitted. Ignoratia legis
non excusat