FAUSTINO SAN JUAN, CORAZON SAN JUAN AND VIRGINIA SAN JUAN, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES…

This is a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus
seeking to nullify the Resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals dated (1)
March 8, 1968, denying petitioners’ Motion for a third extension of time to
file their brief; (2) March 23, 1968, denying the Motion for a fourth extension
to file said brief and dismissing the appeal; and (3) April 6, 1968, refusing
recon­sideration, admission of the brief and reinstatement of the appeal.

The following chronology of events will give the background of
the present controversy:

            Hence, on May 3, 1968,
petitioners presented this Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus praying
that the afore-enumerated Resolutions of the Court of Appeals be set aside,
that their appeal be reinstated, and their printed brief admitted.

Specifically, petitioners
assign the following errors to respondent Court:

“I

IN DENYING ADMISSION OF PETITIONERS’ BRIEF ON THE GROUND THAT THE
THIRD EXTENSION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF WAS FILED ‘2’ DAYS LATE
RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS HAS SO DEPARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE
OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND HAS ACTED IN A MANNER NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AS TO
CALL FOR THE EXERCISE BY THIS HONORABLE SUPREME
COURT OF ITS POWER OF SUPERVISION.

“II

IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONERS ON THE GROUND, NAMELY,
1) THAT THE THIRD PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF OF THE PETI­TIONERS
WAS FILED 2 DAYS LATE 2) THAT THE BRIEF
OF PETITIONERS HAS NOT BEEN FILED UP TO MARCH 23, 1968 WHEN SAID GROUNDS ARE
BELIED BY THE VERY RECORDS OF RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS SAID COURT HAS ACTED
IN EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION AND/OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
TO LACK OF JURISDICTION.

“III

IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONERS, THE RESPONDENT COURT
OF APPEALS HAS DEPRIVED THE PETITIONER OF THEIR RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHOUT DUE PROCESS
OF LAW CAUSING THEM IRREPARABLE INJURY AS THE DISMISSAL OF THEIR APPEAL WILL
HAVE THE EFFECT OF SANCTIONING THE ACTS OF LAND GRABBING PERPETRATED AGAINST
THEM BY HEREIN PRIVATE RESPOND­ENTS.”

There is no question that the allowance or denial of motions for
extensions of time is addressed mainly to the sound discretion of the
Court.  It is likewise axiomatic that
such discretion must be exercised “wisely and prudently, never
capriciously, with a view to substantial justice.”

In this case, the Court of
Appeals denied petitioners’ Motion for a 3rd extension to file their brief on
the ground that said Motion was “filed 2 days late.” This was
a clear misappre­hension of the facts. 
The xerox copy of the envelope containing that
3rd Petition bears two post office stamps, one postmarked Binangonan,
Rizal, dated February 16, 1968, and the other
post-marked Manila, dated February 20, 1968.^[1]
Since it is the date of mailing which is considered as the date of filing under
Section 1, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, it is evident that petitioners’ 3rd
Petition must be considered filed on February 16, 1968, or two days before the
last day, which was February 18, 1968. 
The error was compounded when respondent Court denied the 4th Petition
for extension “it appearing that the earlier petition for a 3rd extension
had been denied.”

Respondent Court likewise denied on March 23, 1968, the petition for 4th extension on the
ground that up to then the appeal brief had not been filed.  As pointed out, however, by petitioners in
their Petition to Admit Plaintiffs-Appellants Brief dated March 21, 1968, they had actually filed their printed Brief on March 20, 1968, three days before respondent Court’s
Resolution dated March 23, 1968.

The interests of substantial justice, therefore, mandate that
petitioners’ appeal be reinstated and their printed brief admitted.  Equally relevant in the resolution of this
case is the consideration that the expiration of the time to file brief, unlike
lateness in filing the notice of appeal, appeal bond or record on appeal is not
a jurisdictional matter.^[2]

Additionally, this case involves a land controversy and the brief
presented by petitioners
presents cogent reasons for hearing petitioners’ side.

“Suffice it to state that where there is no assertion or showing whatsoever of any intent to
delay on the part of appellant or of injury or prejudice to the appellee, and valid special reasons are
presented for the granting of an additional extension within which to file the
appellant’s brief which in fact is
filed within the requested extended period and such brief shows that it
is not perfunctory but on the contrary
presents strong prima facie arguments for hearing the side of the appellant
instead of dismissing the appeal outright, the exercise of sound discretion
favors the granting of such extension of time in consonance with the settled
principle that judicial discretion must be exercised ‘wisely and prudently,
never capriciously, with a view to substantial justice.”^[3]

WHEREFORE, the Resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals
denying petitioners’ 3rd and 4th Petitions for extension of time within which
to file their brief are set aside, petitioners’ appeal ordered reinstated and
their brief admitted.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, and De Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1]
p. 97, Rollo.

^[2]
Gregorio vs. Court of Appeals, 72 SCRA 120 [1976]).

^[3]
Oyao vs. People, 75 SCRA 424-25.