GR 45252; (September, 1936) (Digest)
G.R. No. 45252 ; September 24, 1936
MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, petitioner, vs. LEOPOLDO ROVIRA, Judge of First Instance of Cavite, DANIEL TIRONA and RODOLFO TIRONA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Manuel Rodriguez filed a motion in the Court of First Instance of Cavite for approval of a subdivision plan of a registered lot and issuance of separate titles. The court denied the motion, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to amend a final land registration decree issued years earlier. Rodriguez filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the court had jurisdiction. The court denied reconsideration. Rodriguez then filed a notice of appeal and a bill of exceptions. The respondents opposed the bill of exceptions as filed out of time, and the judge disapproved it. Rodriguez filed this petition for mandamus to compel approval of the bill of exceptions and for a preliminary injunction to restrain the judge from acting on the respondents’ amended application for a writ of possession.
ISSUE
1. Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by Rodriguez was equivalent to a motion for a new trial, thereby suspending the period to perfect an appeal.
2. Whether a writ of mandamus should issue to compel approval of the bill of exceptions.
3. Whether a preliminary injunction should be granted to restrain the hearing on the application for a writ of possession.
RULING
1. Yes. The motion for reconsideration, though not explicitly labeled as a motion for a new trial, was based on the ground that the court’s order denying the subdivision motion was contrary to law (for lack of jurisdiction). This is one of the grounds for a new trial under Section 145 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court has held that a motion for reconsideration based on such grounds has the same effect as a motion for a new trial, regardless of its title. Therefore, it suspended the 30-day period for perfecting an appeal by filing a bill of exceptions. The bill of exceptions was thus timely filed.
2. Yes. Since the bill of exceptions was filed within the proper period, the respondent judge had a ministerial duty to approve it. Mandamus lies to compel the performance of this duty.
3. No. The prayer for a preliminary injunction to stop the proceedings on the writ of possession is an ancillary remedy that is not directly related to the main object of the mandamus petition (the approval of the bill of exceptions). The Court denied this prayer.
AI Generated by Armztrong.