G.R. No. L-491; August 31, 1946
SIMON IBAÑEZ, VENANCIA QUINTANO y FRANCISCO ALMERIA, solicitantes, vs. CONRADO BARRIOS, Juez de Primera Instancia de Iloilo, FRANCISCO GAZO y COSME OBERIO, recurridos.

FACTS

The petitioners (Simon Ibañez, Venancia Quintano, and Francisco Almeria) filed a petition for certiorari. The case originated from Civil Case No. 12086, where the respondents (Francisco Gazo and Cosme Oberio) sued the petitioners over a 7-hectare parcel of land, claiming ownership through a public auction sale for P40.83 to satisfy a judgment for costs against Gregorio Quintano, Venancia’s father. The petitioners’ defense was that Gregorio had donated the land to Venancia in 1915, who later sold it to Ibañez. On August 30, 1941, Judge Arsenio Dizon rendered judgment in favor of the respondents. The petitioners filed a motion for new trial, which was denied on October 20, 1941. On November 17, 1941, they gave notice of their intention to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The next day, November 18, they presented the record on appeal, served a copy on the opposing counsel, and notified them it would be submitted for approval on November 22. The appeal bond was also submitted and approved by the court on November 18. The record on appeal was approved by the court on November 22, 1941. The remaining step was the transmittal of the record on appeal to the Court of Appeals. Nothing was done in the case during the Japanese occupation, and the petitioners remained in possession. On December 20, 1945, after liberation, the respondents filed a motion in the trial court for execution of the judgment, attaching a copy of the decision and alleging it had become final due to the petitioners’ failure to perfect their appeal on time. On January 5, 1946, respondent Judge Conrado Barrios granted the motion and ordered execution. The petitioners moved for reconsideration. The court, before resolving, ordered the reconstituted record—which initially consisted only of the copy of the decision presented by the respondents—to include certified copies of other pleadings held by the parties. Accordingly, certified copies of the order denying the new trial, notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal were incorporated. On February 12, 1946, Judge Barrios denied reconsideration, insisting on maintaining the execution order because the reconstituted record did not contain the court orders approving the appeal bond and the record on appeal. The petitioners filed another motion for reconsideration on February 19, explaining that the original orders were destroyed and no certified copies signed by the judge existed. This was denied on February 25. On February 26, the petitioners changed tactics and asked the court to re-approve the bond and record on appeal, but the judge, siding with the respondents, also denied this request. Hence, the petitioners filed this certiorari petition.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in ordering the execution of the judgment based solely on a certified copy of the decision, despite the petitioners’ claim of having perfected their appeal before the records were destroyed.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari. The respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction. Under Act No. 3110 (law on reconstitution of destroyed judicial records), for a judgment to be executed after the records are destroyed, there must first be a reconstitution of the record and satisfactory proof that the judgment is final and executory. Such proof was lacking here, as the only document presented by the respondents was a copy of the decision. In contrast, it was established that the petitioners had taken steps to perfect their appeal. It was undisputed that the appeal bond and record on appeal were filed and docketed on time, and certified copies of these documents existed. While the reconstituted record did not contain the court orders approving the bond and record on appeal—the originals being destroyed—there were circumstances and presumptions supporting the belief that the appeal was perfected. These included: (1) the sworn statement of the petitioners’ attorney that Judge Dizon approved the bond and record on appeal on the indicated dates, which was not directly contradicted under oath; (2) the presumption that, in the ordinary course of law and absent positive proof to the contrary, the approval was granted on the scheduled date (November 22, 1941), as the court was functioning and the record on appeal was in order; and (3) if the appeal had not been perfected, the judgment would have become final, yet no execution was sought before the Japanese invasion of Iloilo in April 1942. The Court acknowledged it was strange that no action was taken on the appeal during the Japanese occupation, but given the tremendous abnormality of wartime conditions and the doubt, it resolved the issue in favor of the petitioners as the less onerous solution, granting them their “day in court.” This decision was deemed more just and equitable as the records showed the petitioners had a meritorious case, one allegation being that the 7-hectare land was auctioned for only P40 to satisfy costs from another case. The writ was granted, with costs against respondents Gazo and Oberio. The corresponding order was to be issued, and the petitioners’ appeal was to be given due course.