Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-13453 August 7, 1918
PEDRO N. LIONGSON, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT, ATANASIO DE LOS REYES, MARIANO DE LOS REYES, GREGORIO CASTRO, SEVERINO MESINA, BASILIO DIZON, as administrator of the estate of Juan Barnelo Datu, and CIRIACO GONZALES, objectors-appellees.
Eduardo Gutierrez David and Pedro N. Liongson for appellant.
Leodegario Azarraga for appellees.
JOHNSON, J.:
This is a motion to dismiss the appeal based upon the ground that the appellant failed to present his brief within the time prescribed. Rule 23 of the Supreme Court provides:
RULE 23. — If the appellant fails to serve his brief within the time aforesaid that court may, on motion of the appellee and notice to the appellant, dismiss the bill of exceptions on appeal . . . .
The facts of record in the present case, of importance for a consideration of the motion presented, are as follows:
(1) This action was commenced in the Court of Land Registration by the petitioner and appellant on the 2nd day of August, 1915.
(2) On the 3rd day of August, 1915, the petitioner and appellant presented a petition praying that a preliminary injunction, ex parte, be issued against some of the defendants and appellees to prevent them from interfering in any way whatsoever with the possession of the land involved in the original petition.
(3) On the 4th day of August, 1915, the Honorable Vicente Nepomuceno, judge, issued an order directing that the said injunction be issued upon the presentation of a bond in the sum of P500 by the petitioner and appellant.
(4) On the 5th day of August, 1915, the petitioner, together with two sureties, executed and delivered said required bond for the sum of P500.
(5) On the 4th day of August 1, 1915, and the day before the execution and delivery of the bond required, the injunction prayed for was granted and duly served upon the respective parties upon the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th day of August, 1915.
(6) On the 23rd day of August, 1915, the petitioner and appellant presented another petition, praying that an injunction, ex parte, be issued against other persons who he claimed were interfering with the possession of the land in question as well as the possession of other lands which were then involved in other litigation. (Cases 784 and 785.)
(7) On the 4th day of September, 1915, the Honorable Vicente Nepomuceno ordered the injunction prayed for in each of said cases also. (784 and 785.)
(8) On the 16th day of September, 1915, a bond was given by the petitioner and appellant in this particular cause, and on the 18th of September, 1915, the injunction prayed for was duly issued.
(9) Later, various oppositions were interposed against the registration of the parcel of land in question.
(10) Finally, the present petition, together with three others (Cases No. 784, 785 and 825) were duly brought on for trial, and after hearing the evidence, the Honorable Vicente Nepomuceno, on the 15th day of January, 1917, rendered a final decision denying the petition for the registration of the parcel of land involved in the present case and dismissed the same without costs.
(11) A motion for a rehearing was made by the petitioner in each of said causes as well as in the present case (Cases No. 784, 785 and 825) and was granted in part, on the 8th day of February, 1917.
(12) From the decision of the lower court the petitioner duly appealed to this court.
(13) On the 17th of February, 1917, the petitioner asked that he be given thirty days within which to present a bill of exceptions which petition was granted on the same day giving the petitioner and appellant forty days within which to present his bill of exceptions.
(14) On The 15th day of March, 1917, the petitioner asked for another extension of time within which to present his bill exceptions which petition was granted on the same day giving the petitioner and appellant forty days within which to present his bill of exceptions.
(15) The bill of exceptions was actually presented in the court on the 23rd day of April, 1917.
(16) The expediente in the present case, as well as those in the other three cases mentioned, was received in the Supreme Court upon the 13th day of October, 1917. The appellant was notified on the 19th day of October, 1917, to deposit the sum of P24 as the filing fee in the Supreme Court, and the sum of P74.37 for printing the bill of exceptions.
(17) The appellant having failed to make said deposits mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the appellees, on the 19th day of November, 1917, presented a motion praying that the appeal be dismissed, for the reason that the appellant had failed to make the deposits required. On the 5th day of December, 1917, the appellant having deposited the required amounts in accordance with the notice above referred to, the motion of the appellees to dismiss the appeal was denied.
(18) On the 12th day of January, 1918, the petitioner and appellant presented his printed bill of exceptions.
(19) On the 18th day of January, 1918, the petitioner and appellant presented a motion praying that the stenographer be required to send to this court a transcript of the evidence taken during the trial in said various causes, and on the 30th day of January, 1918, said petition was granted and the said transcript was duly received in the Supreme Court on the 25th day of April, 1918, of which fact the appellant was duly notified on the 26th day of April, 1918.
(20) On the 22nd day of May, 1918, the appellant presented a petition asking that he be given two months within which to present his brief, which petition was granted upon the 27th day of May, 1918, giving the appellant fifteen days only within which to present his brief.
(21) On the 7th day of June, 1918, the appellant presented another petition asking that he be given one month within which to present his brief, which petition was granted on the 12th of June, 1918.
(22) On the 17th day of July, 1918, the appellant having failed to present his brief within the time granted, the appellees presented the present motion asking that the appeal be dismissed, for the reason that the appellant had failed to present his brief within time.
(23) On the 20th day of July, 1918, the appellant presented his brief.
Considering the foregoing facts and the unnecessary annoyances to which the petitioner has put the defendants, and the apparent effort to delay a final disposition of the case, we are of the opinion, and so decide, that the motion to dismiss should be and is hereby granted, with costs to the appellants. So ordered.
Torres, Street, Malcolm, Avanceña and Fisher, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
