GR L 94; (October, 1901) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-94, October 7, 1901
JOSE EMETERIO GUEVARA, petitioner, vs. TUASON & CO., respondents.
FACTS:
The petitioner, Jose Emeterio Guevara, sought relief under Act No. 75 of the Civil Commission to be permitted to appeal from a judgment rendered against him by the court of Quiapo on December 13, 1898, in an action for forcible entry and detainer. His attorney was duly notified of the judgment on December 22, 1898. Guevara did not allege fraud preventing his appeal. Instead, he argued that he failed to appeal because he believed the Quiapo court lacked jurisdiction, as the property was located in what is now the Province of Rizal, outside the territory occupied by the United States government at that time. He also contended that judicial terms were suspended by a Spanish royal decree until December 10, 1898 (the date of the Treaty of Paris), leading him to believe the proceedings were invalid. He claimed his omission was due to an “excusable accident” arising from these radical political changes.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner’s failure to timely appeal from the judgment constitutes a “mistake or excusable negligence” under Act No. 75, warranting the granting of relief to permit a belated appeal.
RULING:
No. The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that the “mistake or excusable negligence” contemplated by Act No. 75 refers to a mistake committed by the party that actually prevented the filing of an appeal, not a mistake in judgment about the correctness or jurisdiction of the court’s decision. The petitioner’s belief that the court lacked jurisdiction or that the judgment was invalid was an error of opinion regarding the law or the court’s ruling. Such an error does not physically or legally preclude one from filing an appeal; it merely reflects a decision not to appeal based on a possibly incorrect legal assessment. The Court clarified that judicial errors are correctable through a timely appeal, and Act No. 75 cannot serve as a substitute for this lost remedy. The petitioner’s allegations did not demonstrate that it was impossible to interpose an appeal; they only showed he chose not to based on his interpretation of the law and events. Therefore, the reasons alleged do not constitute the requisite “mistake or excusable negligence” under the law. Costs were imposed on the petitioner.