GR 45366; (January, 1937) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-45366. January 29, 1937.
In re Intestate estate of AUGUSTO H. TUASON, ET AL., petitioners, vs. ANTONIO MA. BARRETO Y ROCHA, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
This is a petition for certiorari and subsidiarily for mandamus. Petitioners seek to restrain the Court of First Instance of Manila from executing interlocutory orders in a case concerning the distribution of income from the mayorazgo Tuason, and alternatively to compel the approval of their bill of exceptions. The trial court, pursuant to a Supreme Court decision, ordered the distribution of income among heirs. In its order of October 21, 1935, it directed the defendants (petitioners here) to deposit a sum for the collateral heirs, with a warning of execution if they failed. Later, on June 17, 1936, the court ordered the defendants to deposit a reduced amount (P133,690.67) for distribution to the collateral line. The defendants filed motions for reconsideration, which were denied by orders dated July 24 and August 24, 1936. They then attempted to appeal from these denial orders by filing a bill of exceptions, which the trial court disapproved.
ISSUE
1. Whether a writ of certiorari should issue to annul the trial court’s orders for execution.
2. Whether a writ of mandamus should issue to compel the approval of the bill of exceptions.
RULING
1. The petition for certiorari is denied. The trial court did not act without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The orders were issued to execute a final Supreme Court decision on distribution. The subsequent order of November 3, 1936 (for attachment) was a logical consequence of the defendants’ failure to comply and did not determine individual liabilities, thus no abuse of jurisdiction existed.
2. The petition for mandamus is denied. The bill of exceptions was properly disapproved. The orders of July 24 and August 24, 1936, were interlocutory orders denying motions for reconsideration and were not appealable. The appealable order was that of June 17, 1936, which finally resolved the deposit incident. The defendants failed to appeal from that order within the statutory period. The motions for reconsideration did not interrupt the period for appeal as they were not based on grounds for a new trial under the Code of Civil Procedure. The extension granted for filing the bill of exceptions was erroneous as the period to appeal from the June 17 order had already lapsed. Therefore, mandamus does not lie to compel approval of the bill of exceptions.
The petition is denied in its entirety.
AI Generated by Armztrong.