G.R. No. L-12877, December 7, 1918
DIONISIO VILLANUEVA, TEODORA PIÑERO, FAUSTO PIÑERO, and SIMPLICIA PIÑERO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. TRINIDAD TAMARRA, defendant-appellee. JOSE G. DE LA PEÑA, intervener-appellant.

FACTS:
The plaintiffs, Dionisio Villanueva, Teodora Piñero, Fausto Piñero, and Simplicia Piñero, filed an action in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Negros to recover a parcel of land as joint owners. The defendant was Trinidad Tamarra. After trial, the court rendered judgment on January 17, 1916, declaring that the land belonged to the intervener, Jose G. de la Peña, absolving the defendant from liability, and ordering both the plaintiffs and the defendant not to interfere with the intervener’s possession. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a new trial on January 21, 1916, which was denied on January 22, 1916. Notice of the denial was given to the appellants’ attorney on the same day. The appellants gave notice of their intention to present a bill of exceptions on January 25, 1916, but the bill of exceptions itself was not filed until February 15, 1916.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Supreme Court acquired jurisdiction over the appeal, considering the timeliness of the filing of the bill of exceptions.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the bill of exceptions for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the bill of exceptions was not presented within the time prescribed by law. The record showed that the bill was filed late, and the period for its filing had not been extended prior to its expiration. Following established jurisprudence, the failure to file the bill of exceptions on time deprives the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.