Angelo v. Alfaro
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Applicants Amparo, Beatriz, and Felix Bautista y Angelo were awarded Lot No. 7 in a land registration case (No. 894, G.L.R.O. Record No. 47320) prior to 1943. Oppositor Pablo Alfaro moved for a revision of this decision, which was denied on June 19, 1943. Alfaro filed a record on appeal in August 1943, but no further action was taken. Procedural History: On March 19, 1951, the applicants moved to reconstitute the lost records based on Alfaro's record on appeal. Alfaro was granted several extensions to file an opposition but failed to do so. Consequently, on July 6, 1951, the applicants moved for the reconstitution to be declared complete. On July 12, 1951, they also moved for a writ of possession, asserting the decision was final and executory, and that Alfaro refused to surrender possession of Lot No. 7. The court set the motion for reconstitution for hearing. On November 27, 1951, Alfaro filed a statement leaving the action on the reconstitution to the court's discretion. On December 5, 1951, the court declared the case reconstituted, considering the pleadings and orders in the record on appeal as authentic. The Petition: Alfaro filed a motion for reconsideration on December 12, 1951. The court, on January 25, 1952, stated no resolution could be rendered until the motion was set for hearing. Alfaro set the motion for hearing on February 23, 1952, and served notice on February 1, 1952. The applicants objected, arguing the December 5, 1951 order was final. They also reiterated their motion for a writ of possession. On April 30, 1952, the court ruled that the December 5, 1951 order had become final and executory, and it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion for reconsideration, thus directing the issuance of the writ of possession. Alfaro appealed this order.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in the manner of reconstituting the case and ordering the issuance of a writ of possession. Whether the lower court erred in not considering appellant's motion for reconsideration of the order dated December 5, 1951.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of December 5, 1951, and April 30, 1952, directing the issuance of the writ of possession, with costs against oppositor-appellant Pablo Alfaro.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (manner of reconstitution and writ of possession): The Court found that the appeal sought by Alfaro from the order of June 19, 1943, was never perfected. While Alfaro filed a record on appeal in August 1943, this record on appeal did not contain an order of approval, nor was there any proof or allegation that the required appeal bond was filed. The reconstitution of the records was based on this very record on appeal, and Alfaro himself, through his statement on November 27, 1951, effectively consented to the reconstitution. His subsequent inaction from 1943 to 1951 further indicated that the appeal was not perfected. The Court noted that had the appeal been perfected, it would have been forwarded to the Court of Appeals long before the liberation of the Philippines, and Alfaro would have taken steps to prosecute or reconstitute it there. On the second issue (motion for reconsideration): The Court held that Alfaro's motion for reconsideration dated December 12, 1951, was not a valid motion at all because it did not comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court regarding notice to the adverse party and setting the motion for hearing. The motion was only effectively filed and brought to the court's attention with proper notice on February 1, 1952, which was more than fifty days after he received notice of the December 5, 1951 order. By this time, the order of December 5, 1951, declaring the case reconstituted, had already become final and executory. Therefore, the lower court correctly ruled that it had lost jurisdiction to entertain the motion for reconsideration.
Main Doctrine
An order declaring a case reconstituted becomes final and executory if no proper motion for reconsideration is filed within the reglementary period, and the court loses jurisdiction to entertain such motion thereafter. Furthermore, a record on appeal must be approved by the court and the appeal bond filed to be considered perfected.