G.R. No. L-49113; May 3, 1944
EUSEBIO QUIZON and FLORDELIZA QUIZON, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE MODESTO CASTILLO, Judge of First Instance of Batangas, ET. AL, respondents.

FACTS

In Special Proceedings No. 3906 of the Court of First Instance of Batangas for the summary distribution of the estate of Gregorio Mayo Villapando, the respondent judge rendered a judgment decreeing that the estate be partitioned equally among three groups of heirs, including the petitioners. The petitioners, claiming to be the sole heirs to the exclusion of the other two groups, filed a notice of appeal. The respondent judge then issued an order fixing the appeal bond at P2,000. The petitioners filed a motion to reduce the bond to P60 pursuant to section 5 of Rule 41, but the respondent judge denied the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. The petitioners then instituted certiorari proceedings, assailing the order as a grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in fixing the appeal bond at P2,000 and refusing to reduce it to P60.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the order constituted a grave abuse of discretion amounting to an excess of jurisdiction. Under section 5 of Rule 41, made applicable to special proceedings by Rule 73, the appeal bond shall be P60 unless the court fixes a different amount, which must be based on the estimated amount of costs that may be awarded against the appellant. The sole purpose of the bond is to secure payment of such costs, which ordinarily do not exceed P60. The respondent judge’s order was silent as to the estimated costs, and from the nature of the case, there was no reason to anticipate extraordinary costs. Therefore, requiring a P2,000 bond was unwarranted. The order was revoked, and the respondent judge was directed to accept a reglementary appeal bond of P60 from the petitioners.