G.R. No. L-4063. November 29, 1950
GO BON CHIAT, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED GO BUNGCO, PETITIONER, VS. PRIMITIVO L. GONZALES, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MISAMIS OR…
REYES, J.:
to approve petitioner’s record on appeal. The petition is not verified
and is challenged on that ground by one of the respondents. But the
respondent judge has raised no objection in that regard and the
technical defect has become immaterial with the substantial admission
of the ultimate facts necessary to the determination of petitioner’s
pretended right to the relief sought.
It appears that on January 19, 1950, the administrator of the estate
of the deceased Go Bungco filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental against one of the herein respondents
Pedro Valmorida to have the latter ousted from a certain lot situate in
the municipality of Balingasag of said province and the lot declared
property of the deceased, it being alleged, among other things, that
his ownership thereof had already been recognized by the same court in
civil case No. 4438 instituted on behalf of his estate against one Go
Bianchong. Answering the complaint, Valmorida claimed title to the lot
by purchase from an heir of said Go Bianchong and alleged that the
judgment in the civil case referred to, which was rendered in 1936, had
lapsed without being executed.
At the trial plaintiff presented a copy (Exhibit B) of the
decision rendered on October 26, 1936, in civil case No. 4438, holding
plaintiff to be the owner of the land there in controversy and
requiring Go Bianchong to pay rents until the land was vacated. But
with the record of the case either destroyed or missing, plaintiff was
not able to present any document showing further development of the
case, except a copy of the bill of exceptions filed by Go Bianchong and
some correspondence (Exhibits C and D) from the provincial sheriff to
the attorney for plaintiff, referring to a remittance from the former
to the latter of the sum of P250 by telegraphic transfer as “a part of
the redemption money paid to this Office by defendant Go Bianchong” in
civil case No. 4438. The correspondence was evidently meant to show
that the judgment against Bianchong had already been executed.
After the presentation of plaintiff’s proof, defendant waived his
right to present evidence and moved for dismissal on the ground that
plaintiff had failed to prove his case. The court granted the motion
for the reasons stated in its order as follows:
“In this light of the evidence presented by phe
plaintiff, the Court is at a loss to conclude: (1) whether the
plaintiff is the real owner of the land in question, (2) whether or
not, the decision appearing in Exhibit B, refers to the land in
question in the present case, (3) whether or not, said decision,
Exhibit “B, was confirmed by the higher court, (4) in case it was
confirmed, whether or not, said decision was ever executed, and (5)
that Exhibits C and D, are not clear evidence of the fact that said
decision in civil case No. 4438, if it became final, was really
executed.”“In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no
reason why this case should be continued and, consequently, orders the
dismissal of this case, with costs against the plaintiff.”
Notified of the above order, plaintiff immediately filed his notice
of appeal. But before perfecting his appeal, he first filed a motion
for new trial with the idea obviously of putting in evidence which he
had reserved for rebuttal but which he had been prevented from
presenting by defendant’s waiver of proof. Non-presentation of this
rebuttal evidence is apparently attributed by plaintiff to “error o
negligencia excusable que la prudencia ordinaria no pudo evitar.” The
intended evidence refers to the identification of the disputed lot and
the proceeding already taken for the execution of the judgment in civil
case No. 4438 and is set forth in the following annexes to his motion
for new trial:
“ANEXO A
“AFFIDAVIT DE MERITO
“Yo,
Petronilo Fernandez, Sheriff Provincial de esta Provincia de Misamis
Oriental, Filipino, mayor de edad, daswes de prestar juramento en
debida forma declaro:“Que antes de la vista de esta causa,
que se ha celebrado en 28 de Marzo, de 1950, el abogado Sr. Vicente
Pelaez se apersono en mi oficina para averiguar si aun conservara, en
nuestra oficina las copias del mandamiento de ejecucion expedida en el
Causa Civil No. 4438, titulada, Santiago So Beng y otros documentos
pertenecxentes y relativosa dicha ejecucion, a lo que le informe de que
ya no existe por motivo de la guerra; que el Sr. Vicente Pelaez
entonces me pregunto, si era yo u otro Sheriff quien efectuo las
diligencias para el cumplimiento de la orden de ejecucion contra Go
Bianchong a lo que tarabien le informe que era yo quien, personalmente,
habia ejecutado y que por no haber pagado la cantidad que aparecia en
la ejecucion entonces.procedi, al embargo de las propiedades inmuebles
de Go Bianchong que se nan vendido en publica subasta, y que antes de
expirar el plazo de retracto, el ejecutado Go Bianchong verifico al
retracto.“Que el Sr. Vicente Pelaez me pregunto si yo
podia-declarar en la vista como testigo, a lo que le informe que lo
haria con gusto, y asi que el dia 28 de Marzo de 1950, cuando se
celebre la vista de la causa arriba titulada yo esperaba a que me
llamara para declarar pero yo no fui llamado, aunque despues de la
vista el abogado Sr. Vicente Pelaez, y que mi testimonio era
corroborativo y que me llamaria despues, como testigo de contraprueba,
en el caso de que el demandado o sus testigos declararan que no hubo
tal ejecucion.“Cagayan, Misamis Oriental, hoy a 2 de Mayo, de 1950.
(Fdo.) “P. A. Fernandez “Sheriff Provincial “Suscrito y jurado ante mi hoy a 2 de Mayo, 1950, en Cagayan, Misamis Oriental.
(Fdo.) “Leoncio Edmilao “Acting Clerk, of Court” “ANEXO B
“AFFIDAVIT DE MERITO
“Yo,
Jesus R. Bautista, Sheriff Delegado de esta Provincia, Filipino, mayor
de edad, despues de prestar juramento en debida forma declaro: que
durante la vista de la causa arriba titulada fui llamado por el Juzgado
y preguntado si conocia donde esta situada la propiedad de Go Bungco,
que esta en litigio a lo que contesto afiimativamente, pero que no
sabia los nonibres de las calles que colindan con la finca aunque me
consta que hay nombres de dichas calles solo que no hay titulos a.ue la
designan.“Que el Juzgado entonces me comisiono para
quefuera a Balingasag con el fin de levantar un croquis en el que
aparezca los nombres de diehas calles si las hay, los nombres de los
otros propietarios que colindan con Bungco y la distancia o los
linderos de dichas propiedades.“Que cumpliendo con lo
ordenado por el Juzgado, he presentado en 30 de Mar20 de 1950 el
croquis solicitados que hoy aparece unido al expediente arriba titulado.“Esta declaracion la presto voluntaria y libremente sin promesa coaccion o violencia a peticion del abogado Sr. Vicente Pelaez.
“Talisayan, Misamis Oriental, hoy a 5 de Mayo de 1950.
(Fdo.) “Jesus R. Bautista “Sheriff Delegado “Suscrito y jurado ante mi hoy a 5 de Mayo, de 1950, en Talisayan, Misamis Oriental,
(Fdo.) “Santiago P. Mercado “Juez de Paz de Talisayan, Mis Or.” “ANEXO D
“AFFIDAVIT DE MERITO
“Yo, Daniel Galarrita, filipino, mayor de edad, despues de prestar juramento en debida forma declaro:
“Que
ha sido nombrado Sheriff Provincial de esta provincia de Misamis
Oriental en o hacia el año 1935 cuyo cargo lo he desemperiado hasta el
año 1946, sin interrupcion; que he visto y examinado los Exhibitos ‘C’
y ‘D’ que se han presentado como pruebas en el expediente arriba
titulado; que las firmas que aparecen en dichos exhibitos son mis
firmas genuinas y autenticas; que en el primer parrafo del Exhibit ‘C’
que se lee texbualwente: In compliance with your request contained
in your telegram dated yesterday, I sent you today P250 by telegraphic
transfer. This is a part of the redemption money paid to this office by
the defendant Go Bianchong in the above entitled case. The fee for
wiring: this amount to you is P2.32, se refiere a la cantidad
remitida al abogado Sr. Vicente Pelaez, por cuanto que el demandado y
ejecutado Go Bianchong en la causa civil No. 4438, titulada: Santiago
So Beng, versus, Go Bianchong, este efectuo y verifico el retracto
legal de las fincas embargadas y vendidas en publica subasta en virtud
del mandaraiento de ejecucion expedido.“Que antes de ser
llamada a vista esta causa elabogado Sr. Vicente Pelaez estuvo a verme
en mi casa donde me demostro los exhibitos ‘C’ y ‘D’ y me infomo que el
me utilizara como testigo de contrapueba en el caso de que el demandado
o los testigos de este negasen que no hubo ejecucion como aparece en la
contestacion y defensas especiales del demandado en la causa arriba
titulada; que yo le conteste que estaba dispuesto a declarar solamente
toda la verdad y de conformidad con lo que esta escrito en mi carta
exhibit C.“Esta declaracion la presto voluntaria y libremente y. sin mediar promesa, dolo violencia o amenaza.
“Cagayan, Misamis Oriental, Mayo 3, 1950.
(Fdo.) “Dan Galarrita “Suscrito y jurado ante mi hoy a 3 de Mayo de
(Fdo.) “Ignacio A. Calingin “Clerk of Court.”
The trial court denied the motion for new trial, and in doing so it
also ordered the affidavits stricken from the record. Plaintiff then
took steps to perfect his appeal by filing his record on appeal. But
the lower courtwould not approve it unless the affidavits were omitted
therefrom. Hence this petition for mandamus.
We find merit in the petition. Petitioner avers that one of the
questions to be raised in the appeal is whether or not the denial of
the motion for new trial was legallyjustified. Whether that motion is
meritorious or not can only be determined by an examination of the
evidence sought to be presented in the new trial and that evidence is
described in the affidavits already mentioned. By ordering the deletion
of the affidavits from the record on appeal the trial court would thus
deprive the appellate court of the means of determining one of the
questions involved in the appeal. This xtould be unfair to the
appellant and should not be permitted.
The petition for mandamus is, therefore, granted and respondent
Judge is ordered to approve petitioner’s record on appeal without the
exclusion of the affidavits already mentioned. With costs against the
respondent Pedro Valmorida.
Paras, Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo, and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.