G.R. No. 48790 ; June 8, 1942
TEODORA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL., petitioners, vs. MANUEL BLANCO, Judge of First Instance of Ilocos Norte, and SANTOS QUEVEDO, respondents.

FACTS

On October 31, 1932, petitioners Teodora de la Cruz and others applied for the registration of a parcel of land in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte. Respondent Santos Quevedo opposed, claiming portions of the land in petitioners’ plan belonged to him. The trial court adjudicated the entire land to the petitioners. Quevedo appealed. On October 31, 1938, the Court of Appeals rendered a final judgment sustaining Quevedo’s claim and ordered the petitioners to present an amended plan excluding his land. The trial court, upon Quevedo’s motions, ordered compliance. Petitioners resisted, contending Quevedo’s parcels were outside their plan. They filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, which was denied. After further execution steps by Quevedo, petitioners filed a petition for revision of the Court of Appeals’ judgment on the ground of fraud, alleging Quevedo falsely claimed his parcels were within their plan. The trial court denied this petition. Petitioners then filed a record on appeal, which the trial court disapproved, stating the order was interlocutory and the record omitted pertinent proceedings showing petitioners’ attempts to frustrate the final judgment. Petitioners subsequently filed this mandamus proceeding to compel the respondent judge to approve and certify their appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly disapproved the petitioners’ record on appeal and whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel its approval.

RULING

The petition for mandamus is denied. The Supreme Court held that the appeal petitioners attempted to interpose from the order denying their motion for revision was manifestly and palpably frivolous. The motion was deemed another step to frustrate the final and executory judgment of the Court of Appeals. The question of whether Quevedo’s land was within petitioners’ plan was already conclusively settled by the appellate court. The motion for revision, based on grounds already passed upon, served no purpose other than malicious delay. While appeals are generally not dismissed on merits-related grounds, an appellate court may order dismissal when the appeal is manifestly frivolous—defined as presenting no justiciable question or being so devoid of merit that success is improbable. The trial court’s disapproval of the record on appeal was proper, as the appeal was evidently without merit and interposed for delay. Costs were imposed on the petitioners.