Mendoza vs. de Castro, 1960

1
Mendoza vs. De Castro, 1960

G.R. No. L-12965 April 29, 1960 the parties to reconstitute said record. Hence the decision, if
any, cannot he reconstituted.
CARMELINO MENDOZA, plaintiff-appellant,
vs. PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition for reconstitution is
JOSEFINA DE CASTRO, defendant-appellee. hereby denied, without pronouncement as to costs.
Jorge G. Macapagal for appellant. In the appeal before this Court, it is argued that as no
Josefina de Castro in her own behalf. authentic copy of the decision sought to be reconstituted
can be found, the court below should have made a new
LABRADOR, J.: decision as if the case has been newly decided. The futility
of the argument becomes apparent if we consider that the
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First court below did not believe the testimonies of both plaintiff
Instance of Manila, Hon. Rafael Amparo, presiding, denying and defendant as to the supposed divorce proceedings and
a petition for the reconstitution of a supposed decision of judgment because of certain minor details in their
the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch IV, dated June testimonies which belie their claim that a case was
27, 1944 and signed by Hon. Gervasio Diaz, Judge. presented and a decision therein rendered. Among these
are: the fact that defendant supposedly received copy of the
Inasmuch as the appeal was made directly to this Court and decision Exhibit "A" from Judge Diaz himself sometime in
the parties do not question the findings of fact of the court April, 1944 at the City Hall of Manila, when the judge below
below but only the legal conclusion contained in said knew that the Courts of First Instance of Manila held in
decision, the decision is reproduced below: Intramuros at that time and moved to the City Hall only
after the first bombing of Manila on September 21, 1944.
This is a petition for reconstitution of the decision in a The Court also noted their claim that Judge Diaz personally
divorce case between plaintiff and defendant allegedly handed them the copy of the decision, which is not the
prosecuted in Manila in September 1943 and decided on or practice of courts; and that defendant married for the
about June 27, 1944. A copy of the alleged decision is second time in April 14, 1944 when the supposed decision is
attached to the petition. The petition is based on the dated June 27, 1944.
provision of Section 7, of Act No. 3110, which reads as
follows: The other evidence submitted does not help the case of the
appellant. During the Japanese Occupation, a peculiar way
If a civil case has already been decided, the decision shall of numbering cases was adopted, but this peculiarity does
be reconstituted by means of an authentic copy. In case an not appear on the face of the supposed copy of the decision.
authentic copy cannot be found, the Court shall make a new The certificate of the Clerk of Court of Manila merely states
decision as if the case had never been decided. that the supposed record of the case cannot be found. If the
record is not available, what about the docket, which would
The law provides that "the decision shall be reconstituted by have disclosed if a case had really been filed and decided.
means of an authentic copy. The copy presented at the The existence of the supposed case is questionable, the
hearing by the plaintiff, Exhibit A, is a simple copy of the simple copy of the decision presented by the plaintiff not
alleged decision dated June 27, 1944. There is no evidence bearing the seal of the court which issued it or the signature
tending to establish the authenticity of this copy. It bears no of the clerk who supposedly gave it. We agree with the trial
initial of the stenographer or of the judge, or any seal or court that the parties have not satisfactorily proved that the
mark of the court. It is a simple copy without any sign that it divorce case had been actually presented and decided by
came from the court. Authentic copy, as the court the court, hence the petition for reconstitution of the
understands the term is a copy officially served upon a decision under Section 7 of Act No. 3110 cannot be granted.
party by a messenger, employee, or sheriff of the court,
with the date of service appearing thereon. Wherefore, the decision of the court below should be, as it is
hereby, affirmed, with costs against appellant.
According to the testimony of the plaintiff, this Exhibit A was
handed to him by the stenographer after the hearing of the Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo,
case and after the decision was dictated by Judge Gervasio Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera and Gutierrez David,
Diaz and the notes transcribed by the stenographer. Such JJ., concur.
procedure is quite irregular and not in conformity with
practice, for the reason that copies of decisions are served
upon the parties formally after the decision has been filed
with the clerk of court and duly stamped and sealed by him
the seal of the court.
The defendant Josefina de Castro on the other hand testified

that the petition for divorce was filed in Diliman, Quezon
City and that she received from Judge Gervasio Diaz a copy
of the decision in the City Hall of Manila in April, 1944. The
Court takes judicial notice that all branches of the Court of
First Instance of Manila were in Intramuros in April, 1944,
and were moved to the City Hall after the first bombing of
Manila on September 21,1944. Furthermore, the alleged
copy of the decision is dated June 27, 1944 and could not
have been handed to her by Judge Diaz in April, 1944. It is
also very strange that the judge himself personally would
deliver to her a copy of the decision. This defendant also
stated that she married for the second time on April 14,
1944 which was more than two months before the decision
or decree of divorce, dated June 27, 1944.
In the absence of an authentic copy, the law provides that

"the court shall make a new decision as if the case had
never been decided." There is no record of the said case in
the Court of First Instance of Manila nor is there means for

Mendoza vs. de Castro, 1960

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mendoza vs. de Castro, 1960

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mendoza vs. de Castro, 1960

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Mendoza vs. De Castro, 1960

The defendant Josefina de Castro on the other hand testified

In the absence of an authentic copy, the law provides that

You might also like