G.R. No. 21183 ; August 31, 1923
Government of the Philippine Islands ex rel. Director of Lands vs. Jesus Sanz, et al. Gabino Barretto Po Ejap, objector-appellee. The Municipality of Tacloban, objector-appellant.

FACTS

This is a cadastral case. The trial court rendered a “sin perjuicio” decision on January 30, 1923, which was a mere pronouncement of judgment without stating the facts. The Municipality of Tacloban received notice on February 2, 1923, and filed a motion for new trial on February 6, 1923. The appellee, Gabino Barretto Po Ejap, moved to dismiss that motion on June 2, 1923, arguing it did not comply with court rules. On the same day, the trial judge denied the motion for new trial and filed an amplified decision setting forth the facts supporting the earlier pronouncement. The Municipality filed exceptions and a new motion for new trial against the June 2 decision. Its bill of exceptions was filed on June 20, 1923. The appellee moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the bill of exceptions was filed late, counting from the January 30 decision.

ISSUE

Whether the appeal was perfected on time, i.e., whether the bill of exceptions filed on June 20, 1923, was filed within the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes, the appeal was timely. The “sin perjuicio” decision of January 30, 1923, was not a final decision compliant with the mandatory requirements of Section 133 of Act No. 190 (the Code of Civil Procedure), which required a statement of facts and law. Therefore, the appellant had the right to await the final, compliant decision rendered on June 2, 1923, before perfecting its appeal. The bill of exceptions filed on June 20, 1923, was within thirty days from notice of the June 2 decision. The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. The Court disapproved the practice of rendering “sin perjuicio” decisions.