G.R. No. L-4247; January 30, 1952
SILVERIO SALVA, petitioner, vs. THE HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, and the HON. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, Judges of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, ELENO CORNEJO, PEDRO UMALI and ENRIQUE ALTAVAS, Chief of the GENERAL Land Registration office, respondents.

FACTS

In the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Eleno Cornejo and Pedro Umali each filed an application for registration of certain parcels of land under Act 496. Silverio Salva filed an opposition to both applications. In the same court, Salva also brought an ejectment action against the applicants involving the same parcels. The joint hearing of the ejectment and land registration cases was set for December 8, 1949. Two days before the hearing, Salva’s attorney filed a petition for postponement due to his wife’s serious ailment requiring an X-ray examination. The respondent court denied the petition. On the hearing date, Salva’s attorney failed to appear. The court dismissed the ejectment complaint and granted the applicants leave to present evidence in the land registration cases. Based on that evidence, the court confirmed the applicants’ titles and decreed registration in their names. Salva filed a notice of appeal and record on appeal within the reglementary period but filed the appeal bond two days after the expiry of an extension previously granted. The court disallowed the record on appeal due to the late filing of the bond and for failing to include certain essential documents. The court dismissed the appeal. A motion for reconsideration, arguing that no appeal bond is needed in land registration cases and that omission of some proceedings is not a ground for dismissal, was denied. Salva then filed this petition to compel the Court of First Instance to allow amendment of the record on appeal, approve it, and forward it to the Court of Appeals, and to enjoin the Chief of the Land Registration Office from issuing the decrees.

ISSUE

1. Whether the respondent court committed a grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for postponement and proceeding with the hearing ex parte.
2. Whether the respondent court committed a grave abuse of discretion or exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing the appeal for failure to file the appeal bond on time and for deficiencies in the record on appeal.
3. Whether the proper remedy for the petitioner was to file a petition for relief under Rule 38 instead of pursuing an appeal.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court held there was no merit in the contention that the respondent court abused its discretion in denying the motion for postponement. The denial of a motion for postponement lies within the discretion of the trial court, and unless an abuse is shown, it should not be disturbed. The respondents’ answer indicated the denial was due to the attorney’s history of filing last-minute postponements to the prejudice of the applicants.
2. The Supreme Court held that the respondent court did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal. The failure to file the appeal bond within the reglementary period, even after an extension, was fatal. The court’s potential allowance of an amendment to the record on appeal under Rule 41, Section 7, for omitted matters, did not carry with it an extension of the period for filing the appeal bond. The judgments in the land registration cases having become final, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the issuance of decrees.
3. The Supreme Court ruled that the proper remedy for the petitioner was to file a motion for relief under Rule 38 (for relief from judgment) in the court below, not to appeal. From a denial of such a petition, he could have appealed. Since the judgments were final, an appeal would have been futile as there would be no evidence for the appellate court to review unless based on insufficiency of the applicants’ evidence.
The petition was denied, with costs against the petitioner.