G.R. No. 428 : April 30, 1902
JOSE ZULUETA, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCA ZULUETA, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Don Jose Zulueta and his sister, Doña Francisca Zulueta, are the sole heirs under the will of their father, Don Clemente Zulueta. In the voluntary testamentary proceedings for the partition of the estate, three auditors were appointed. The two auditors nominated by the parties failed to agree, and the auditor umpire adopted in full the report of the auditor nominated by Don Jose. Doña Francisca opposed this report. Following the procedure under the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, the court, after a meeting of the parties yielded no agreement, directed that the procedure for declarative actions be followed and gave Doña Francisca a term to formulate her demand. Doña Francisca petitioned for suspension of the proceedings until the new Code of Procedure took effect, which the court denied. The court subsequently declared that the term for filing her demand had expired and she had lost her right to institute the action. Doña Francisca’s petition for reform of this order was denied by an acting judge. Her appeal against this denial was not admitted by the regular judge for being filed out of time. Consequently, the court approved the partition proceedings. Doña Francisca appealed this approval and also filed a separate petition under Act No. 75, seeking relief from the orders based on alleged mistakes of law by the judges and by herself.

ISSUE:
1. Whether Doña Francisca is entitled to relief under Act No. 75 from the court’s orders based on alleged mistakes of law.
2. Whether the court correctly declared that Doña Francisca lost her right to institute a declarative action and properly approved the partition proceedings.

RULING:
1. No, the petition under Act No. 75 must be denied. The Supreme Court held that Act No. 75 provides relief against judgments obtained by fraud, accident, or mistake, but the term “mistake” does not extend to errors of law committed by the judge in the exercise of jurisdiction. Such errors are correctible by appeal and the statute is not a substitute for that remedy. Furthermore, Doña Francisca’s own mistake of law regarding the period to appeal is not a ground for relief under the Act, as ignorance of the law generally excuses no one from compliance therewith.
2. Yes, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. The Court found that the lower court correctly fixed a definite term for Doña Francisca to institute her declarative action, in accordance with Article 1071 of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil. Having failed to file her demand within the granted term and extension, she lost her right to do so. With no valid opposition left, the court had no alternative but to approve the partition proceedings. The Court also noted that the factual claim regarding the dating of the auditors’ reports was unsupported by the record.
Therefore, the petition under Act No. 75 was denied and the auto approving the partition was affirmed. Costs were imposed on the appellant.