CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS 2020 - 2021

4 ALVERO v. DELA ROSA NATURE OF REMEDIAL LAW

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

FREDESVINDO S. ALVERO, petitioner, vs. M. L. DE LA ROSA Judge of First

Instance of Manila, JOSE R. VICTORIANO and MARGARITA VILLARICA.,
respondents.
G. R. No. L-286, March 29, 1946
Dead Wife of Counsel
De Joya, J.

A strict observance of the rules of court, which have been considered indispensable to the prevention of needless
delays and to the orderly and speedy dispatch of judicial business, is an imperative necessity.

FACTS:

Respondent Villarica sold to Victoriano two parcels of land totalling to 480

sqm. On Oct. 1, 1940, for the sum of P6,000. In their agreement, Victoriano is to make a
down payment of P1,700, and a monthy payment of P76.86 in 120 monthly instalments.
Failure of Victoriano to pay 3 successive monthly instalments would allow Villarica to resell
the property, and the forfeiture of Victoriano’s payments made, except in force majeure.
Immediately after the sale, Victoriano took possession of the land and made improvements
amounting to P800.

Due to war-time conditions on December 31, 1941, respondents Villarica and

Victoriano verbally agreed to suspend payments until the restoration of peace.
Victoriano continued to occupy the property until 1944 when he went to the places of
evacuation to which he stayed until February 1945.

Respondent Villarica sold the same parcels of land to petitioner, Alvero for
P100,000 in Japanese Military notes. Villarica claimed to have forgotten the prior sale with
Victoriano. However, Villarica also claimed to have offered to repurchase the said property
for the sum if P8,000. Petitioner Alvero took possession of the property in December 1944
and presented the deed of sale to the Register of Deeds in January 1945. He found
Victoriano in the premises in February 1945. Victoriano also presented his deed of sale to
the RoD. Both Alvero and Victoriano failed to transfer the titles into their names.

Victoriano filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance in the City of Manila (1) to
declare the contract between him and Villarica to be in force, and (2) to declare the
subsequent contract of sale between Alvero and Villarica to be void. Respondent judge
De la Rosa rendered his decision in favor of Victoriano on the ground that Victoriano’s
document is significantly older than Alvero’s, and that the same has been in possession of
the property since 1940.

CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS (2020 - 2021)

BUCU, GOLLA, GUICO, PALOMERA
CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS 2020 - 2021
4 ALVERO v. DELA ROSA NATURE OF REMEDIAL LAW

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

On Nov. 28, 1946, Alvero was notified of said decision. He filed a petition for
reconsideration and new trial which was denied on January 3, 1946, and received
notification thereof on January 7, 1946.

On January 8, Alvero filed his notice of appeal and record on appeal in the lower
court, but failed to file the appeal bond amounting to P60.

On January, 14, 1946, Jose R. Victoriano filed a petition to dismiss the appeal and
asked for the execution of the judgment.

On January 15, 1946, Alvero filed an opposition to said motion to dismiss, and
claimed that he filed the appeal bond of P60 on the same day. He alleged as an excuse
that he failed to file the appeal bond in due time due to the illness of his lawyer’s wife,
who died on January 10, 1946 and was buried the following day.

On January 17, 1946, respondent judge de la Rosa ordered the dismissal of the
appeal on the ground that the appeal bond was filed too late.

On January 23, 1946, Alvero filed a petition for reconsideration of the order
dismissing his appeal, which was later denied on January 29, 1946. Hence, this petition for
certiorari.

The respondents filed their answer, alleging (1) that the petition is defective in form
as well as in substance and (2) that there has been no excusable negligence, on the part of
the petitioner, or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge, in the instant
case.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not respondent judge de la Rosa acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

HELD:

No, there was no showing that there had been merely an excusable negligence
on the part of the attorney of petitioner Alvero, and that there had been grave abuse of
sound judicial discretion on the part of respondent judge de la Rosa.
According to the erroneous computation made by the trial court, the last day for filing
and perfecting the appeal was January 8, 1946. Alvero only filed his notice of appeal and
record of appeal, but failed to file his appeal bond. Failure to appeal within the time
prescribed by the rules of court will cause judgment to become final, and the certification of

CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS (2020 - 2021)

BUCU, GOLLA, GUICO, PALOMERA
CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS 2020 - 2021
4 ALVERO v. DELA ROSA NATURE OF REMEDIAL LAW

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

the record on appeal, thereafter, cannot restore the jurisdiction which has been lost.
However, this period within which the record on appeal and appeal bond should be perfected
and filed may be extended by order of the court upon application prior to the expiration of the
original period.

NOTE: If he asks why it is erroneous: the motion for reconsideration of Alvero’s counsel
did not point out specifically the findings or conclusions in the judgment, which are not
supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law, making express reference to the
pertinent evidence or legal provisions as required in Rule 37, sec. 2 (c). Motions of that
kind have been considered as pro forma intended merely to delay the proceeding. As
such they cannot and will not interrupt or suspend the period of time for the
perfection of appeal. The period for perfecting herein petitioner’s appeal commenced
from Nov. 28, 1846 when he was notified of the judgment and expired on Dec. 28,
1945.

The counsel of petitioner Alvero alleges, for his excuse, that his failure to perfect and
file his appeal in due time was due to the illness and subsequent death of his wife. The counsel
could have asked for an extension of time, within which to file which he had failed to do so. As
such, he must bear the consequences of his act. A strict observance of the rules of court,
which have been considered indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and to
the orderly and speedy dispatch of judicial business, is an imperative necessity.

CIVPRO - MORENO DIGESTS (2020 - 2021)

BUCU, GOLLA, GUICO, PALOMERA