G.R. No. L-28516 July 31, 1973
THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ZOILO C. ALBERTO, et al., defendants, ZOILO C. ALBERTO, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The Director of Lands filed an action resulting in a decision by the Court of First Instance of Laguna dated September 19, 1967, which declared Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-39536 and T-39537 in the name of Zoilo C. Alberto null and void. The court ordered Alberto to surrender these titles for cancellation and to revive the previous title, T-12304. Alberto appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, Alberto filed several motions to withdraw his appeal, the first of which was denied by the Court in a resolution dated October 30, 1972.
Subsequently, Alberto filed a third urgent motion to withdraw his appeal, stating he was “ready and willing to accept and abide by the decision appealed from.” In response, the Solicitor General, representing the Director of Lands, filed a manifestation. The manifestation clarified that an unqualified withdrawal meant acceptance of the lower court’s decision, rendering it final and executory, and that Alberto would confine his activities to the area covered by the revived TCT No. T-12304 and not intrude into government-owned shorelines of Laguna de Bay. Based on these considerations, the Director of Lands offered no objection to the withdrawal.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant the appellant’s motion to withdraw his appeal, thereby rendering the lower court’s decision final and executory.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal. The legal logic is grounded in procedural rules governing the withdrawal of appeals and the role of the appellee’s consent. While a party generally has the right to withdraw an appeal, such withdrawal carries the consequence of accepting the finality and executability of the appealed decision. The Court’s earlier denial of a withdrawal motion was superseded by the subsequent development where the appellee, the Director of Lands, formally manifested no objection.
Crucially, the Solicitor General’s manifestation provided an explicit interpretation of the withdrawal’s legal effects, ensuring it was an unqualified acceptance of the trial court’s judgment and a commitment by Alberto to limit his claim to the area of the revived title, TCT No. T-12304, and not encroach on public domain lands. This assurance addressed the substantive public interest in protecting state property from private intrusion. With the appellee’s consent and the clear terms of the withdrawal, the Supreme Court found no impediment to granting the motion. The dismissal of the appeal rendered the lower court’s decision declaring Alberto’s titles void and ordering the revival of the previous title immediately final and executory in its entirety.