G.R. No. L-19482 EN BANC G.R. No. L-18482; January 31, 1964
MARIA ROA, Administratrix, Special Proceedings, No. 106 Court of First Instance, Pampanga, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE L. PASICOLAN, EMILIO SANTOS, and ROSENDA S. VDA. DE GOLDING, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Maria Roa, as administratrix of the testate estate of Potenciana Ducuco, filed a complaint in 1954 to annul a 1938 deed of sale executed by the deceased in favor of respondent Emilio Santos covering five lots, with respondent Rosenda S. Vda. de Golding later acquiring a half-share. The defendants asserted the sale was valid and pleaded prescription. The respondent Judge rendered judgment on November 2, 1960, dismissing the complaint and upholding the sale. Petitioner received the decision on November 18, 1960, filed a notice of appeal the next day, and submitted a record on appeal with a petition to appeal as a pauper on November 28. The pauper petition was denied on December 7, 1960. On December 10, 1960, before any action on the appeal bond, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment, arguing it was contrary to Article 776 of the Civil Code and contrary to the evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to resolve petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and in declaring the decision final and executory on the ground that said motion was pro forma and did not interrupt the appeal period.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the writ of certiorari. The legal logic is that a litigant is entitled to a resolution of a timely filed motion for reconsideration on its merits. The trial court erroneously treated the motion as pro forma without a hearing or express denial, and then used that characterization to disapprove the appeal, holding the decision had become final. The Court found the motion was not merely pro forma. The first ground, citing Article 776, presented a substantive legal argument that the right to contest the sale was transmitted by operation of law to the estate without need for express provision in the will, directly challenging the trial court’s reasoning. The second ground, while less clearly articulated, pointed to specific evidence regarding a witness’s testimony and alleged fraudulent intent, which deserved judicial consideration. Since the motion raised issues that merited a ruling, the trial court’s failure to resolve it constituted a denial of due process and a grave abuse of discretion. The orders were set aside, and the respondent Judge was directed to consider and resolve the motion for reconsideration on its merits.