This appeal  originally  taken if the Court of Appeals was forwarded to this  Tribunal for the reasons that the briefs filed  by the parties raised  questions  of law only. It must,  however,  be  dismissed, because upon examination of the record, we  find it to be either tardy or useless. In  Civil Case  No. 5245 of the Quezon  court  of first instance, plaintiffs in August  1951, asked for recovery of a  parcel of land, plus damages.   The following  month, they petitioned for the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the property  and  its  products.   To  prevent such receivership,  defendant Daniel Paglinawan, submitted a bond subscribed by Rizal Surety & Insurance Co., for the amount of P2,000 "under  the condition that  the defendant  *  * * will, on demand, pay  to  the  plaintiff the damages adjudged by the  Court which  plaintiff  may suffer * * *."

After  hearing  the parties  and their evidence,  said Quezon Court rendered judgment  for  plaintiffs, requiring defendant to vacate  the land  and to pay Pl,064.00  per year until he leaves the premises  "and should not  he not be able to pay it, the  bond  filed  by him would have to answer therefor."  Whereupon, plaintiffs asked that  the surety be directed to deposit  with the Court the amount of the bond for the satisfaction of such  judgment.  The court deferred action on the request "until after  the appellate court shall have decided the appeal  in this case." (Defendant had appealed to  the Court of Appeals.)   On November 3, 1955, the last-mentioned  court dismissed defendant's appeal.  Consequently, upon reiteration of plaintiffs' request, the Quezon court, by its order dated January 11,  1956, required

"* *  *  Rizal Surety & Insurance Company to deposit with the Clerk of Court the amount of P2,00O which is the amount of the bond posted in behalf of Daniel Paglinawan,  subject  to the disposition  thereof  by the  said plaintiffs, for the  execution  of  the judgment in this case."

Of this  order  the  surety company  received  notice  on January 20, 1956,  [Record on Appeal p. 81] ^[1]; and  on February 20, 1956, it filed a motion for  reconsideration asserting the illegality of the order "because it does not make a finding of facts."  On March 14, 1956, this motion was denied, and the surety  knew  of such  denial on April 24,  1956.  Then on May  24,  1956,  it  registered "its intention  to  appeal from  the order  of this  Court  dated March 14,  1956."

It appears, however, that the appellant's brief actually questions  the order of January  11,  1956, herein  above quoted.   In  fact, the second assignment ascribes error  to the  lower court "in issuing its orders of January 11, 1956 and  March  14,  1956." Obviously it realizes the futility of this  appeal unless the order of  January 11, 1956,  is set  aside.  But  said order had become  final long before this appeal was perfected on May  24, 1956.   (January 20 to February 20-31  days;  April 24  to May 24-30   days; total 61 days.)

Of course, the surety  was aware  of the number of days (61) that had elapsed; wherefore, its notice  of appeal only mentioned the order of March  14, 1956.^[2]   Nonetheless,  it urges here the  revocation of the order of January 11,  1956.

Needless to say, the appellant may not  circumvent  the finality of the questioned order (January 11) by the subterfuge of merely appealing from the denial of  its motion to reconsider  (March 14).

Appeal dismissed.   Costs against appellant.

Paras,  C. J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A.,  Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L.,  and Endencia, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Allegation of plaintiffs in their "Oposicion  a la mocion de reconsideracion" of  February 23, 1956, which was never denied by the  surety in its pleadings,

^[2] The appeal would be within 30 days  from April 24, 1956.  But, as explained, it is useless.