GR L 12827; (August, 1917) (Digest)
G.R. No. and Date: G.R. No. L-12827; August 22, 1917
Case Title: ALIPIO BERMUDEZ, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, LEON ROMERO, and LIBERATO GARICA, objectors. LEON ROMERO, appellant.
FACTS:
This case originated from a land registration proceeding under the Torrens system. The Court of First Instance rendered its decision on September 18, 1916. The appellant, Leon Romero, filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied on October 4, 1916. The period for filing a bill of exceptions, as prescribed by Section 26 of Act No. 2347, was 30 days from notice of the decision. The appellant failed to present the bill of exceptions within this 30-day period. Subsequently, on November 13, 1916, after the statutory period had lapsed, the trial judge granted the appellant’s petition for an extension of time to file the bill of exceptions. The bill was eventually presented on November 29, 1916, and later approved by the trial judge on January 23, 1917. The appellee, Alipio Bermudez, moved to dismiss the appeal in the Supreme Court on the ground that the bill of exceptions was not filed within the period mandated by law.
ISSUE:
Whether the judge of a Court of First Instance, acting in a land registration case under the Torrens system, has the authority to extend the 30-day period for presenting a bill of exceptions after that period has already expired.
RULING:
No. The Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss the appeal. It held that under Section 26 of Act No. 2347, which amended the relevant provisions of the Land Registration Act, the statutory period of 30 days for filing a bill of exceptions in land registration cases is mandatory and jurisdictional. The Court reasoned that while the earlier law, Act No. 1484 , had expressly granted courts the discretion to extend the period (up to 60 days), the amendatory Act No. 2347 deliberately omitted such a grant of extension power. This legislative omission signifies the intent to make the 30-day period absolute and not subject to extension by the court, especially after its expiration. Consequently, the trial judge acted without authority in granting the extension after the 30-day period had lapsed. The appeal was therefore not perfected within the time prescribed by law and was dismissed.
This is AI (Gemini and Deepseek) Generated. Please Double Check. Powered by Armztrong.