G.R. No. 41947 , December 29, 1936
In re will of Silvestra Baron. VIVENCIO CUYUGAN, petitioner-appellant, vs. FAUSTINA BARON, ET AL., oppositors-appellees.

FACTS

The case involves the probate of the will of Silvestra Baron. The Supreme Court initially affirmed the lower court’s decision denying probate on January 16, 1936. The appellant filed a timely but extensive alternative petition for reconsideration or new trial on the last day of the reglementary period. This petition was denied on the same day. The appellant then filed a petition for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration. After the record was remanded to the trial court for execution, the Supreme Court granted the appellant’s motion to recall the case and allowed the filing of the second motion. Subsequently, based on a witness’s retraction of his prior testimony, the Court unanimously ordered a new trial. The appellees opposed, arguing the Supreme Court had lost jurisdiction after remanding the case.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction to order a new trial after it had denied the first motion for reconsideration and remanded the case to the trial court for execution.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction. The Court held that its jurisdiction continued by virtue of the appellant’s timely application for leave to file a second motion for reconsideration, which was filed on the first available day after notice of the denial of the first motion. The rule allowed such an application and did not prescribe a specific period for filing it, provided it was done within a reasonable time. The fact that the record was briefly remanded did not divest the Court of jurisdiction, especially as the remand occurred shortly after the application was filed and before the trial court could act on it. The Court cited precedents establishing its authority to resume jurisdiction and recall a case even after remand. Therefore, the order for a new trial was validly issued.

AI Generated by Armztrong.