G.R. No. L-2893 December 31, 1949
AGRIPINO JIMENEZ and SOFIA RESTAR, petitioners, vs. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Agripino Jimenez and Sofia Restar were defendants in a land recovery case (Civil Case No. 704) before the Court of First Instance of Marinduque, where judgment was rendered against them. They received notice of the decision on December 30, 1948. They subsequently filed a motion to amend findings of fact on January 11, 1949, and a motion for new trial on January 28, 1949, which the court deemed pro forma for lack of required specifications. The trial court issued a writ of execution on February 14, 1949, declaring the judgment final and executory. Petitioners filed a more specific motion for new trial on March 1, 1949, and then sought certiorari to set aside the writ of execution.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of execution issued on February 14, 1949, was valid, i.e., whether the judgment had already become final and executory at that time.

RULING

Yes, the writ of execution was valid. The judgment became final and executory on January 29, 1949. The period to appeal was not suspended by the petitioners’ earlier motions. The motion to amend findings filed on January 11, 1949, was not a motion to set aside the judgment and thus did not interrupt the appeal period. The motion for new trial filed on January 28, 1949, was pro forma for failing to specify the newly-discovered evidence or the portions of the decision contrary to law or evidence, and therefore also did not interrupt the period. The proper motion for new trial filed on March 1, 1949, was filed after the judgment had already become final. Consequently, the petition for certiorari was denied.

AI Generated by Armztrong.