G.R. No. L-27166 March 25, 1970
GERMAN CRISOSTOMO, as heirs of QUITERIO CRISOSTOMO; FELIPA CRISOSTOMO; PEREGRINA FLORES DIMAGUIBA, as heiress of POTENCIANA CRISOSTOMO; and PURIFICACION CRISOSTOMO-REYES, as heiress of NARCISO CRISOSTOMO; who are all heirs of the late PEDRO CRISOSTOMO, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HEIRS OF LAUREANO MARQUEZ, JOSE A. AGUILING, in his capacity as Clerk of Court, Court of Appeals, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, heirs of Pedro Crisostomo, sought a review of a judgment in Registration Case 1183, which decreed registration of a parcel of land in Hagonoy, Bulacan, in the name of the estate of Laureano Marquez. The trial court denied their petition on April 26, 1960. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, filing their record on appeal and appeal bond. After the parties submitted their briefs in CA-G.R. 28678-R, the respondents (heirs of Marquez) moved to forward the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the land’s value exceeded P200,000, placing it within the Supreme Court’s exclusive appellate jurisdiction. Petitioners opposed, contending the provincial assessor’s certified value was only P29,170, within the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals required memoranda on the jurisdictional issue but did not expressly rule on it. On November 8, 1966, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision on the merits against petitioners. Petitioners received the decision on November 9, 1966, and on November 23, 1966, filed a one-sentence “motion for consideration” on the ground it was “contrary to law and evidence,” requesting 15 days to file a supporting memorandum. The Court of Appeals granted them 15 days from November 22, 1966, to file the motion for reconsideration. On December 7, 1966, the last day of the extension, petitioners moved for a further 30-day extension to submit their memorandum. On December 8, 1966, the Court of Appeals denied the extension and declared its decision final. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of this order was denied on December 21, 1966. Hence, this petition for certiorari and mandamus.

ISSUE

1. Whether the value of the property under litigation removed the controversy from the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion for a 30-day extension to file their memorandum and in declaring its decision final.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court refused to entertain the challenge to the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction based on the principle of estoppel. Petitioners themselves initially urged the trial court to transmit the records to the Court of Appeals, chose that forum, and actively defended its jurisdiction when respondents challenged it. They cannot, after receiving an adverse decision, repudiate the very jurisdiction they invoked. Sound public policy and the doctrine of estoppel bar such a speculative change of position.
2. The Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was pro forma, as it was a one-sentence motion that did not specify the findings or conclusions alleged to be unsupported by evidence or contrary to law; thus, it could not suspend the period for appeal. Furthermore, given the protracted history of the litigation (spanning three and a half decades), the Court of Appeals was justified in denying the further extension, perceiving a manifest intention to delay. Petitioners took a risk in filing for an extension and doing nothing more when it was denied.
The petition was denied, with treble costs against petitioners, to be paid by their counsel.