THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PETITIONER, VS. MARCELINO ADORABLE ET AL., CLAIMANTS, MIGUEL PEÑARANDA, CLAIMANT AND APPELLANT, PURIFICACION SOLINAP ET AL., CLAIMANTS AND APPELLEES.

PERFECTO, J.:

At the reconstitution of the above entitled case, claimant-appellant
presented copies of several papers, exhibits, pleadings, motions and orders,
including copy of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, record
on appeal, and the printed brief of said claimant-appellant who, at the time he
filed his motion for reconstitution on February 26, 1946, was under the
impression that the case, which was pending decision in the Court of Appeals
when the war broke out, remained unacted upon by said court until the motion for
reconstitution was filed.

On June 25, 1946, Attorney Manuel F. Zamora, for the claimants and appellees,
acting under the highest standards of truthfulness, fair play and nobility as
becomes a deserving member of the bar, instead of taking advantage of
claimant-appellant’s ignorance of what really happened in the Court of Appeals,
informed this Court that the case had been decided in favor of said claimant and
appellant by the Court of Appeals, filing to said effect the copy of the
decision promulgated on September 9, 1942, sent to him by said court, to save
the appellant the trouble of waiting for the reoonstitution of this ease and
this tribunal the trouble of deciding again a case already decided.

Upon being informed of the statements of Attorney Zamora,
claimant-appellant’s attorneys filed a petition with the commissioner for
reconstitution to make a report to this Court that the records be declared
reconstituted, together with the decision of the Court of Appeals dated
September 9, 1942, and that said records be remanded to the lower court for
execution of the decision.

The court resolved to declare that the case is reconstituted and to order
that copy of the decision of the Court of Appeals, promulgated on September 9,
1942, be sent to the lower court for exeoution. This resolution is being adopted
not without making of record that the aotion taken by Attorney Manuel F. Zamora
should be considered as an example worthy to be remembered by all members of the
bar.

Paras, Pablo and Padilla, JJ., concur.