Cruz v. Blanco
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Teodora de la Cruz and others applied for the registration of a parcel of land. Respondent Santos Quevedo opposed this application, asserting that certain parcels belonging to him were included in the petitioners' plan. The initial trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, granting them the entire land applied for. 2. Procedural History: Santos Quevedo appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals. On October 31, 1938, the Court of Appeals modified the judgment, sustaining Quevedo's claim and ordering the applicants to submit an amended plan excluding Quevedo's land. After this judgment became final, the trial court issued orders for its execution. Petitioners resisted these orders, filing a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court which was denied. Subsequently, they filed a petition for revision based on alleged fraud, which was also denied. The trial court then disapproved their record on appeal from this denial. 3. The Petition: The petitioners have instituted the present proceeding for mandamus to compel the respondent judge to approve and certify their appeal from the order denying their motion for revision. They contend that the parcels adjudged to Quevedo lie outside their originally applied-for land. However, the Supreme Court finds this appeal to be manifestly and palpably frivolous, as the issue of Quevedo's land inclusion was already settled by the Court of Appeals and the motion for revision was an attempt to reopen a closed question for malicious delay.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal from the order denying the motion for revision is frivolous. Whether the trial court erred in disapproving the record on appeal.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus is denied. The appeal from the order denying the motion for revision is manifestly and palpably frivolous. The trial court did not err in disapproving the record on appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the appeal is frivolous: The Supreme Court held that the appeal from the order denying the motion for revision was manifestly and palpably frivolous. The Court reasoned that the motion for revision was one of the various steps taken by the petitioners to frustrate the final judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals. The question of whether Quevedo's land was within the petitioners' plan had already been finally settled by the Court of Appeals. The petitioners had previously attempted to reopen this question through a petition for certiorari, which was denied. Their subsequent motion for revision, based on an alleged misrepresentation by Quevedo regarding his testimony, had also been passed upon by the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the motion for revision served no other purpose than malicious delay, rendering the appeal from its denial frivolous. The Court reiterated that while appeals should generally not be dismissed on merits, appellate courts may order dismissal when an appeal appears manifestly and palpably frivolous, especially when it is interposed for delay. An appeal is considered frivolous if it presents no justiciable question or is so devoid of merit on its face that it has little prospect of success. On the issue of whether the trial court erred in disapproving the record on appeal: The Supreme Court found no error in the trial court's disapproval of the record on appeal. The trial court correctly characterized the motion for revision as a dilatory tactic aimed at frustrating the final judgment of the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, the trial court noted that the record on appeal failed to include pertinent proceedings that would demonstrate the merits of the petitioners' position and their repeated attempts to frustrate the judgment. Given that the appeal was deemed frivolous and intended for delay, the trial court's action in disapproving the record on appeal was justified and would not be disturbed by the appellate court.
Main Doctrine
An appeal from an order denying a motion for revision, which motion is deemed a step to frustrate a final judgment, is considered frivolous and may be dismissed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court.