G.R. No. 29918, August 22, 1928
Magdalena Villanueva, petitioner, vs. Hon. Emilio Araneta Diaz, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Magdalena Villanueva sought to appeal a decision in a cadastral land registration case. She was notified of the decision on November 9, 1927, and filed a motion for a new trial on December 5, 1927, which was denied on January 5, 1928. She presented her bill of exceptions on January 14, 1928. The respondent judge refused to approve the bill, holding thatafter deducting the time the motion for a new trial was pending34 days had elapsed from the notification of the decision to the filing of the bill, exceeding the 30-day statutory period. Villanueva argued that the notification she received was not a valid service of the decision because it contained only the portion relating to her claimed parcel, not the entire voluminous cadastral decision covering all lots.

ISSUE

Whether the notification of only the relevant portion of a cadastral decision to a claimant constitutes valid service of the decision for purposes of computing the period to appeal.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus. The Court held that the respondent judge correctly refused to approve the bill of exceptions as it was filed beyond the 30-day period prescribed by Section 14 of Act No. 496, as amended. The Court ruled that in cadastral cases involving numerous claimants and parcels, service of the portion of the decision pertaining to the claimant’s lot is sufficient to constitute valid notification. This construction aligns with the statute’s purpose of apprising a claimant of the disposition of the land in which they are interested, without requiring the government to furnish copies of irrelevant parts of a voluminous decision. The period to appeal began from such notification.