ALEJANDRO VILLAGRACIA, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. CIRIACA VILLAGONZALO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Villagracia versus Villagonzalo

The Case

This is an action brought by Alejandro Villagracia against Ciriaca Villagonzalo and others, decided by the Supreme Court in June 1934. The plaintiff sued in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, and the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The case matters to a reviewee because it shows how the Supreme Court treats an appeal that is perfected but never prosecuted: the appeal is not a shield, and the judgment below stands unless the appellant does what the rules require. It is a short, clean illustration of the consequences of a defective or abandoned appeal.

Procedural History

The action was commenced in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. That court rendered an order dated the thirtieth of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed from that order to the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court, having regularly acquired jurisdiction over the cause, which was submitted by both parties for decision, considered the record and rendered its decision on the twenty-fifth of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, affirming the order appealed from.

Facts

The plaintiff, Alejandro Villagracia, brought suit against Ciriaca Villagonzalo and others in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The trial court resolved the matter in the plaintiff's favor by an order dated the thirtieth of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one.

Aggrieved, the defendants perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court. The cause was submitted by both parties for decision, and the Court, having regularly acquired jurisdiction, took up the record.

On the twenty-fifth of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, the Supreme Court rendered judgment. It affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance, with costs against the defendants and appellants in both instances, and ordered the plaintiff and appellee to recover from the defendants and appellants the sum of forty pesos as costs.

Issues

• Whether or not the order of the Court of First Instance of Cebu dated the thirtieth of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, should be affirmed on appeal.
• Whether or not the defendants and appellants are liable for the costs of the proceedings in both instances.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote or construe any statutory provision. Its disposition rests on the record and on the settled rule that an appealed judgment stands unless the appellant shows reversible error. The governing principle is stated in the Court's own decree:

By virtue thereof it is hereby adjudged and decreed that the order of the Court of the First Instance of Cebu, dated the thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, and from which the above-entitled appeal was taken, be, and the same is hereby, affirmed with cost against the defendants-appellants in both instances.

This decree bears on the case because it fixes the result of the appeal: the order below is affirmed, and costs are assessed against the appellants.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance of Cebu dated the thirtieth of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one. The Court, having regularly acquired jurisdiction for the trial of the cause submitted by both parties for decision, considered the record and found no ground to disturb the order appealed from. The appeal therefore failed, and the judgment below stood.

On the second issue, the Court assessed costs against the defendants and appellants in both instances. It further ordered that the plaintiff and appellee recover from the defendants and appellants the sum of forty pesos as costs. The assessment of costs follows from the affirmance: the party who unsuccessfully appeals bears the expense of the litigation in both instances.

Doctrine

An appellant who submits the cause for decision on the record must show that the order appealed from is erroneous. Where the Court, upon consideration of the record, finds no reversible error, the order of the court below is affirmed. The affirmance carries with it the assessment of costs against the appellants in both instances, and the appellee is entitled to recover the costs so assessed. A reviewee should state the rule plainly: the judgment of the trial court is presumed correct, and the burden of showing error rests on the appellant.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance of Cebu dated the thirtieth of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, with costs against the defendants and appellants in both instances, and ordered the plaintiff and appellee to recover from the defendants and appellants the sum of forty pesos as costs.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that an appealed order is affirmed with costs against the appellants where the record discloses no reversible error. Examiners use this case to test the rule that the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error, and that an unsuccessful appeal carries the costs of both instances.