REYES, J.:

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

On November 30, 1945, Manuela I. Vda. de Gonzales filed a petition in said court for the reconstitution of the judicial record of a civil case instituted by her against Juan Cojuangco in 1944. The petition alleges that the said case was brought to compel acceptance of a tender of payment made by her in order to discharge a mortgage held by Cojuangco on a piece of land adjudicated to her in the proceeding for the settlement of her deceased hus- band's estate; that the tender having been refused, the necessary amount in PNB cashier's check was deposited by her in court; that after defendant had filed his answer and the case been heard the court gendered judgment about November, 1944, holding the tender of payment val- id and declaring the mortgage paid and cancelled; and that thereafter the record of the case was destroyed in the battle for the liberation of Manila.       

Acting on the petition for reconstitution, the court set the case for hearing and required the parties to present "all copies of motions, decrees, orders and other docu- ments" in their possession having reference to the case. Unable to present any such copies notwithstanding the various extensions of time granted for that purpose, plain- tiff, on August 14, 1946, filed a written manifestation entitled "Statement of the Case Reconstituted," setting forth her version of the pleadings filed, the proceedings had, and the decision alleged to have been rendered in the case, and asked that the record be declared duly recon- stituted. The request was opposed by defendant and de- nied by the court in its order of November 6, 1946, which reads as follows:

"El 13 de Noviembre de 1945 fue archivada la peticion que enca- beza estos autos, para la reconstitucion de su expediente original, que se ha perdido o destruido en la liberacion de esta ciudad, pero despues) de varias proposiciones para dar a la peticionaria opor- tunidad de presentar copias de los escritos y actuaciones que formaban el expresado expediente, solo ha pedido producir en 14 de Agosto ultimo el escrito titulado "Statement of the case re- constituted", que no incluye ninguna copia certificada de los escritos archivados en el expediente original, mucho menos de la sentencia que, segun se alega en el mismo, se ha dictado. A la admision de este "statement of the case reconstituted" el abogado del demandado se opone y pide que la peticion de reconstitucion sea denegada.

"Entre las actuaciones que el abogado de la demandante incluye en su 'State of the case reconstituted' esta la que se alega ser la decision dictada por el Juez Hon. Mamerto Roxas, Esta supuesta decision es lo que el abogado de la demandante llama decision dictada por el Juez Roxas, que no es valida para reconstituir una sentencia, segun el artfculo 7 de la Ley No. 3110 que dice:

" 'Sec. 1. If a civil case has already been decided, the decision shall be reconstituted by means of an autfientie copy * * * "

(La subraya nuestra.)

"Este mismo articulo 7 provee que cuando no se puede obtener copia certificada de la sentencia, el Juzgado tiene que dictar otra, corao si la causa no hubiera sido decidida con anterioridad.

"Mas para que se pulda dictar decisi6n, es preciso que se cuente con los escritos de alegaciones y las pruebas aportadas duvarte la vista, y nada hay de ello en este expediente.

"El artfculo 6 de la misma Ley No. 3110 preceptua que, si no se puede obtener copia autentica de la transcription de las notas taquigraficas, ni las mismas notas por haberse destruido, la causa se vera. de novo.

"En su virtud, se resuelve que no procede la reconstitucion de esta causa y debe verse de nuevo, previa reproducci6n o presenta- cion de alegaciones.

"Asi se ordena.

"Manila, Filipinas, 6 de Noviembre de 1946.

(Fdo.)    M. L. de la Rosa
Juez"

No appeal was taken from this order. But more than three years after its promulgation, with Manuela I. Vda. de Gonzales already dead, her administratrix filed in the reconstitution proceeding a motion for the admission of a "complaint" filed on the same day, which was nothing more than a rehash or synopsis of the written manifest- ation entitled "Statement of the case Reconstituted" which had already been rejected by the coui:t as a substitute for authentic copies of the documents constituting the des- troyed record, the complaint ending with the prayer that judgment be rendered in the premises, declaring the ten- der of payment valid and the mortgage in favor of Co- juangco discharged. Opposed by defendant, the motion to admit the so-called "complaint" was denied by the lower court, and the case is now here by way of appeal from the order of denial.

We see no merit in the appeal. Section 3 of Act No. 3110 provides that in the proceeding for the reconstitution of judicial record the court shall request the parties to present "all copies of motions, decrees, orders and other documents in their possession, having reference to the re- cord or records to be reconstituted," while section 4 says that "in case it is impossible to find a copy of a motion, decree, order, document, or other proceeding of vital im- portance for the reconstitution of the record, the same may be replaced by an agreement on the |acts entered into be- tween the counsels or the parties interested, which shall be reduced to writing and attached to the proper record." In the present case the parties have not been able to com- ply with what is contemplated in either section, for they have neither presented copies of the documents constitu- ting the record nor filed in lieu thereof a written agree- ment on the facts. The attempt at reconstitution has therefore failed, so that the legal provision applicable to the situation is section 30 of the Act, which says that when reconstitution is not possible by means of the procedure established in the Act or for any other reasons, "the in- terested parties may file their actions anew, upon payment of the proper fees, and such actions shall be registered as new actions an

Appellant's plain recourse is to file her action anew and pay the proper fee, which action shall be registered as a new one and treated as such.

The order appealed from is therefore affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Paras C. J., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Ju~ go and Bautista Angelo, JJ., concur.