Gabon v. Jorge
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerned a homestead application (H.A. No. 85302 [E-85420]) filed by Salvador Ajos. Orders were issued by the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, which cancelled this application and directed Ajos's heirs, tenants, and associates to vacate the land and deliver possession to the district Land Officer of Davao City. Procedural History: Emilia Gabon, et al. (petitioners-appellees) filed a special Civil Case No. 3593 in the Court of First Instance of Davao, Branch II, seeking certiorari, mandamus, and preliminary injunction. The trial court rendered a decision on January 13, 1964, declaring the orders of the Director of Lands and the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources null and void. The Director of Lands and other respondents (respondents-appellants) perfected an appeal from this decision to the Supreme Court. The Appeal: The respondents-appellants, instead of filing their brief within the granted extension, filed a notice of voluntary abandonment and withdrawal of their appeal on December 28, 1964. They stated their decision to pursue a petition for reversion under Section 101 of the Public Land Act, as suggested by the lower court, rather than continue the appeal. The Supreme Court accepted this manifestation as the appellants' brief and, noting the appellees' lack of objection, considered the appeal withdrawn with the effect of dismissal, pursuant to Sections 2 and 4 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal should be considered withdrawn and dismissed based on the appellants' manifestation of voluntary abandonment and withdrawal. Whether the appellees' failure to file a brief or interpose an objection affects the disposition of the appeal.
Ruling
The appeal is hereby considered withdrawn, with the effect of dismissal, in accordance with Sections 2 and 4 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of withdrawal and dismissal of appeal: The Supreme Court considered the appeal withdrawn and dismissed. This was based on the appellants' filing of a pleading explicitly stating their voluntary abandonment and withdrawal of the appeal. The appellants indicated their intention to pursue a different legal remedy, namely, a petition for reversion under Section 101 of the Public Land Act, as suggested by the lower court. This action by the appellants effectively signaled their intent not to pursue the appellate process further. The Court accepted this pleading as the appellants' brief, signifying its acknowledgment of their stated position. On the effect of the appellees' inaction: The Court noted that the appellees did not file their brief, nor did they interpose any objection to the appellants' withdrawal of the appeal. This lack of opposition from the appellees further supported the Court's decision to consider the appeal as withdrawn. The Rules of Court provide for the dismissal of an appeal under specific circumstances, including the appellant's failure to prosecute the appeal. In this instance, the explicit manifestation of abandonment by the appellants, coupled with the appellees' silence, led to the application of the procedural rules governing the dismissal of appeals. Sections 2 and 4 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court were cited as the basis for this dismissal, underscoring the procedural consequences of the appellants' actions and the appellees' acquiescence.
Main Doctrine
An appeal may be considered withdrawn and dismissed upon the filing of a pleading by the appellants stating their voluntary abandonment and withdrawal of the appeal, especially when the appellees do not interpose any objection.