Scribd
Upload
53 views1 page

G.R. No. 21, December 08, 1902

The Supreme Court denied Manuel Brillantes' petition to vacate an earlier order that declared his appeal abandoned and the original judgment a finality. The earlier order was issued after Brillantes failed to prosecute his appeal for over two years. In his petition, Brillantes alleged he was prevented from pursuing the appeal due to force majeure in the form of war, but he did not prove or offer to prove this. As Brillantes did not show he was prevented from appealing within the two year period by forces outside his control, his petition brought under relevant Code articles was overruled and the original order would stand.

Uploaded by

JB Andes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
53 views1 page

G.R. No. 21, December 08, 1902

The Supreme Court denied Manuel Brillantes' petition to vacate an earlier order that declared his appeal abandoned and the original judgment a finality. The earlier order was issued after Brillantes failed to prosecute his appeal for over two years. In his petition, Brillantes alleged he was prevented from pursuing the appeal due to force majeure in the form of war, but he did not prove or offer to prove this. As Brillantes did not show he was prevented from appealing within the two year period by forces outside his control, his petition brought under relevant Code articles was overruled and the original order would stand.

Uploaded by

JB Andes
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

21

[ G.R. No. 21, December 08, 1902 ]

SIMONA BRILLANTES, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. MANUEL


BRILLANTES ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
DECISION

TORRES, J.:
By an order of July 30 of this year the appeal was declared to have been abandoned, and the
appellants' rights to have lapsed by the expiration of more than two years. In consequence the
judgment appealed was declared a finality. The appellant, Manuel Brillantes, upon the day
following the service upon him in his residence of notice of the order, service having been
made by the judge of Abra, filed a petition asking for the vacation of the said order, and that
he be allowed the term of twenty days or more provided for by article 370 of the old Code of
Civil Procedure, for the purpose of coming to an understanding with Solicitor Santos, or
some other solicitor, to represent him before this court. Among other grounds he alleged that
he was prevented from prosecuting the appeal by force majeure, to wit, by war, and that the
term prescribed by article 394 of the law cited had not expired when the force majeure
ceased, and that therefore he considered himself entitled to avail himself of the remedy
prescribed by article 399 of the same law.
The petitioner has not proven, nor has he even offered to prove, that he was prevented from
prosecuting his appeal before the expiration of the term of two years by force majeure, or by
any cause independent of his own will. For this reason his application, brought conformably
to the provisions of articles 395, 399, and 400 of the Code of Civil Procedure, must be
overruled, and consequently the vacation of the order prayed for by Manuel Brillantes in his
petition of September 20 last is denied, with the costs. The directions contained in the order
referred to will be carried into effect. So ordered.
Arellano, C. J., Cooper, Smith, Willard, Mapa, and Ladd, JJ., concur.

You might also like