Case Name: Santos, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. West Porto Rico Sugar Company et al., Defendants and Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1920-11-30
Citations: 28 P.R. 869
Docket Number: No. 2357
Parties: Santos, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. West Porto Rico Sugar Company et al., Defendants and Appellees.
Judges: Chief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 869–871

Head Matter:
Santos, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. West Porto Rico Sugar Company et al., Defendants and Appellees.
Appeal from the' District Court of Mayagiiez in an Action for Rescission of Contract and Damages.
No. 2357.
Decided November 30, 1920.
Appeal — Extension oe Time — Jurisdiction. — When one month and thirteen days after the filing of the notice of appeal the court granted the appellant an extension of time for filing the statement of the case, the appeal will be dismissed. Such an extension is null and void and the fact that the appellee did not raise the question of jurisdiction in the district court in order to object to the granting of the extension is no defense for the appellant.
Id.- — Service by Publication. — The period of ten days allowed the appellant by the Code of Civil Procedure for filing the statement of the ease can not be considered as automatically extended by the fact that at the appellant’s ■instance the notice of appeal was served on one of the defendants by publication.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. A. Nosario Lugo for the appellant.
Mr. J. B. García Méndez for the appellees.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Wolf
delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellee moves to dismiss because, it alleges, the extensions of time for filing the statement of the case were nullities; hence, legally, there is no such statement and the transcript was not filed in this court within thirty days, as required by law.
Appellant mantains that the appeal may not be dismissed because he has never received a copy of the certificate of the clerk of the District Court of Mayagüez which the appellee made a part of his motion. G-ranted this fact, while the failure to notify this copy gives the appellant the privilege of an extension of time or other relief in this court, it will not in itself prevent the dismissal. Appellant was sufficiently advised of the existence of this copy and asked for no relief or extension.
Appellant maintains that at the time the motion was presented- his time for filing a statement of the case had been extended by the District Court of Mayagüez. The appellee answers that this and previous extensions were made when that court was without jurisdiction to make these extensions, inasmuch as when the first application was made the time for filing the statement had already expired. Indeed, the case primarily falls within the principle announced in Belaval v. Cordova, 21 P. R. R. 509, and that case necessarily is also authority in opposition to the contention of the appellant that the appellee may not move in this court to dismiss without first having recourse to the district court. The lack of jurisdiction to extend the time clearly appears.
Nor does it help the appellant that there was another- appellee and at the instance of the complainant-appellant she, a non-resident, was notified by publication. Bnt this appellee was in reality a natural party complainant who was made defendant and who took no part in the trial. It would be this defendant alone who could complain of the lack of notice of the appeal and not the. appellant who is nominally adverse to her.
The appeal must be
Dismissed.
Chief Justice Hernández and Justices del Toro, Aldrey and Hutchison concurred.