G.R. No. L-8992; July 28, 1913
JOSEFA ESPIDOL, PACIFICO BAUTISTA in presentation of his wife Julita Espidol and PERFECTO MENDOZA in representation of his daughter Felisa, petitioners-appellants, vs. BUENAVENTURA ESPIDOL and CASIMIRO ESPIDOL, opponents-appellees.

FACTS

The appellees filed a motion in the Supreme Court to dismiss the appellants’ appeal. The motion was based on two grounds: (1) that the appellant had consented to the judgment of the lower court, and (2) that the bill of exceptions was presented out of time. Regarding the first ground, the Court noted that although the appellant initially consented to the order of partition from the lower court, he was later permitted by the court to withdraw that consent, take an exception, and perfect an appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the motion to dismiss the appeal should be granted on the grounds that the appellant consented to the judgment below and that the bill of exceptions was presented out of time.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal. On the first ground, the Court held that the appellant’s subsequent withdrawal of consent and taking of an exception, with the lower court’s permission, rendered the consent ineffective. On the second ground, the Court found the motion insufficient because it merely alleged conclusions of law (e.g., that the appeal was not perfected on time) without stating the specific facts upon which those conclusions were based. The Court emphasized that motions must clearly and explicitly set forth the factual basis for the relief sought, and where possible, refer to the specific pages of the record where such facts appear. Since the motion failed to allege any facts to support the claim that the appeal was filed out of time, it could not be granted. The Court issued a directive for future motions to comply with this requirement.