This is an action for damages in the amount of P50,000 alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff on account of the late Adolfo F. Pando's failure to grant an extension of time for  the payment of a real estate mortgage debt.

The plaintiff assures that had the extension been granted, one Maria Padilla  would  have bought the estate or her right of redemption for not less than P50,000, assuming, furthermore, all the plaintiff's  mortgage obligations to the aforesaid Fando.

The defendant, who is the administrator of the  above-named  creditor's  testamentary  estate,  alleges  that the plaintiff  had no right to the extension requested,  as this court held in G. R. No. 29184,¹ that the aforementioned Maria Padilla lacked the necessary means to meet the obligations  she intended to contract  with the plaintiff, and that the action herein brought, being an appeal from  the resolution  of the committee on claims and appraisal  of the late Adolfo  F. Pando's  estate, has, under section 775 of the Code of Civil Procedure, already prescribed. After trial, the Court of First Instance of Manila which heard the case absolved the defendant from the complaint, and sentenced the plaintiff to  pay costs.

The plaintiff  appealed,  alleging that the  court below erred:

1. n finding that the plaintiff herein had  failed to appeal from the decision of the  commissioners  appointed to hear  claims against the estate of the deceased Adolfo F. Pando within the time fixed by the law.
   
2. In finding that the evidence did not disclose  that Maria Padilla, the person with whom the proposed exchange of lands was to be made, was  the  owner  of properties valued at P50,000.
   
3. In failing to  find that the deceased Adolfo F. Pando had broken his verbal agreement to extend the mortgage in question for one year.
   
4. In finding,  without any proofs  whatsoever to sustain such finding, that the lands in Pasay are not worth P35,000.
   
5. In dismissing plaintiff's complaint, and in failing to render  judgment  in favor of plaintiff for P50,000 with interest and costs.
6. In overruling and  denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial."

In support of the first assignment of error, counsel for the appellant cited Exhibits C, EE,  E, J, K, DD.  We find nothing in these documents to destroy the trial court's conclusion  that the complaint in this case was not presented in time.

Inasmuch as section 775 of the Code of Civil Procedure has not been complied with, the  plaintiff lost her right to bring this action; not because of prescription, which does not exist in this case, but because  the committee's resolution in the matter of the claims has  become final, and because for lack of appeal duly taken the Court of First Instance did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter.

This  would suffice, as the lower court correctly held, to put an end to the case.  But even going into the merits of the case, the evidence of record bears out the court's finding that at  the time referred to herein, Maria  Padilla's property was not worth P5,000, according to its assessed value.

As to the  extension of time, the plaintiff was not entitled to it, and this is res judicata, having been definitely decided against  her in case G. R. No. 29184 between herself and the said Adolfo F.  Pando, whose  successor is made defendant in this case, the matter of the extension of time having been one of the questions raised and passed upon in that case. Neither can it  be held as proven that the late Pando had promised, even orally, to grant her the extension of time repeatedly mentioned.

Lastly, the record supports the lower court's finding that the property in Pasay which was the subject matter of the mortgage is not worth P35,000.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, and in view of the circumstances of the case, the appellant will pay double costs.  So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street,  Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and Villa-Real., JJ., concur.

---

¹ Pando vs. Kette and Sellner (52 Phil., 150).