Yturralde v. Santos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case involves a motion to dismiss a bill of exceptions filed in a case previously tried in the Court of Land Registration. Procedural History: The judge of the Court of Land Registration refused to sign the bill of exceptions on the ground that the time for its presentation had expired. An order was subsequently issued by a higher court, compelling the judge to sign and certify the bill, based on the decision in Fischer vs. Ambler. The bill was then signed and transmitted, leading to the appellee's motion to dismiss. The Petition: The appellee moved to dismiss the bill of exceptions.
Issue(s)
Whether the bill of exceptions was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the exception taken on November 17, 1904, constituted sufficient notice of intention to present a bill of exceptions. Whether the appellant took practicable steps to give notice of intention to present a bill of exceptions.
Ruling
The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is granted, with costs against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the bill of exceptions was filed within the reglementary period: The judgment was entered on November 9, 1904. The appellant excepted on November 17, 1904, and presented a motion for a new trial on December 6, 1904, which was denied on December 7, 1904. The bill of exceptions was presented for signature on December 13, 1904. If the exception on November 17 was considered notice of intention to present a bill of exceptions, the ten-day period for presentation would have expired on November 27, 1904. Since no extension was sought or granted, and no agreement was made with the adverse party, the presentation on December 13 was beyond the prescribed time. The Court found that the time for presentation had expired. On Whether the exception taken on November 17, 1904, constituted sufficient notice of intention to present a bill of exceptions: The Court considered two possibilities. If the exception on November 17 was deemed notice, then the ten-day period under section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure expired on November 27. The bill was not presented by this date. If the exception on November 17 was not considered notice, then the appellant did nothing from November 9 to December 6 that could be construed as such notice. The Court held that section 143 requires notice to be given as soon as practicable, and it was evident that notice could have been given much earlier than twenty-seven days after the judgment. On Whether the appellant took practicable steps to give notice of intention to present a bill of exceptions: The Court found that the appellant failed to give notice of intention to present a bill of exceptions as soon as practicable. The period between the judgment on November 9 and the presentation of the bill on December 13 was considerable, and no diligent steps were taken to comply with the procedural requirements for giving notice. The delay indicated a lack of compliance with the mandate of section 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires prompt action.
Main Doctrine
A bill of exceptions must be presented within the reglementary period, and failure to do so without a valid extension or agreement will result in its dismissal.