FILOMENA ONA, APPLICANT. PATRICIA ISLAS ET AL. (OPPONENTS), PETITIONERS, VS. SERVILIANO PLATON, JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF TAYABAS, AND FILOMENA ONA, RESPONDENTS.

OSTRAND, J.:

It appears from the record that in December, 1920, the herein petitioners
filed a petition in the Court of First Instance under section 38 of the Land
Registration Act for the review of a decree in a land registration case. On
March 23, 1921, the court denied the petition for review without permitting the
petitioners to present their evidence. Upon appeal to this court the order
denying the petition was reversed and the record remanded to the court below for
the reception of evidence.^[1]

The evidence having been received, the Court of First Instance on April 16,
1924, again denied the petition for a review and on May 5, 1924, the petitioners
herein filed a motion for a new trial. The motion was heard and denied on the
17th of the same month and two days later due notice of the denial was sent to
the attorney for the petitioners at his office address in Manila. The letter
containing the notification was returned to the clerk of the Court of First
Instance the latter part of June, 1924, marked “unclaimed.” On August 26, 1924,
the petitioners presented their exception to the order of May 17th denying the
petition for a new trial and announced their intention to.appeal to this court.
A bill of exceptions was filed on August 29, 1924, but the trial court refused
to approve and certify it on the ground that the time for presenting it had then
expired.

On September 2, 1924, an order was entered declaring the decision in the land
registration case final, and on the 24th of the same month a writ of possession
was issued directing the sheriff of the province to place the applicant for
registration, the herein respondent, Filomena Ona, in possession of the land.
The petitioners thereupon brought the present action for a writ of mandamus to
compel the respondent judge of the Court of First Instance to approve and
certify the bill of exceptions filed on August 29, 1924. Counsel for the
petitioners argues that under section 26 of Act No. 2347 an appellant in a land
registration case has thirty days from the date upon which he receives a copy of
the decision within which to present his bill of exceptions; that the order from
which his clients desire to appeal must be considered a “decision” within the
meaning of said section; that as he never received a copy of the order, the
thirty days period had not begun to run at the time the bill of exceptions here
in question was presented.

It may well be doubted whether section 26 of Act No. 2347 is applicable to
appeals from orders relating to petitions for review, but assuming that such is
the case, the respondent judge was nevertheless, in our opinion, fully justified
in declining to certify the bill of exceptions in the present case.The bill was
not presented until over three months after the notice of the order from which
the petitioners desire to appeal should have reached their counsel in the
ordinary course of the mails. The notice was duly sent by registered letter to
counsel at his address in the City of Manila and it is not intimated that the
address was erroneous. There is nothing in the record to show that the postal
authorities did not properly perform their duty and we must presume that the
usual notice of the arrival of the letter at the Manila post office was
delivered at the office of said counsel. He failed to claim the letter and it
was returned to the Court of First Instance marked “unclaimed.” His failure to
receive a copy of the order in question was therefore entirely due to Ijis own
negligence of which he cannot now be allowed to take advantage. As a practicing
lawyer it was his duty to so arrange matters that official communications sent
by mail would reach him promptly. Having failed to do so, he and his clients
must suffer the consequences of his negligence. That he may have been absent
from his office at the time the notification here in question arrived is no
excuse.

The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied, with the costs against the
petitioners. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor,
Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Ona vs. Islis, R. G. No. 19980,
promulgated August 22, 1923, not reported.