Roque v. Del Rosario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a civil case between spouses Basilisa Roque and Francisco Bautista, et al., as plaintiffs, and Araceli W. Vda. del Rosario, et al., as defendants. Araceli W. Vda. del Rosario was the specific defendant-appellant in this matter. Procedural History: Following a judgment in the trial court, the defendant-appellant filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond. The plaintiffs-appellees subsequently filed a motion for execution of the judgment and a motion to dismiss the appeal in the trial court, arguing that the record on appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period. The trial court denied both motions, stating that the notice of appeal and appeal bond were timely filed. The Petition: The plaintiffs-appellees filed a petition with the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeal, asserting that the record on appeal was filed late. The defendant-appellant opposed this petition, relying on the trial court's previous denial of similar motions. The Supreme Court, however, reiterated the settled rule that timely perfection of an appeal is a jurisdictional requisite and, finding the appeal to have been filed late, granted the petition to dismiss the appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal was perfected on time. Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction over the appealed case.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The timely perfection of an appeal is a jurisdictional requisite for the appellate court to acquire jurisdiction over the appealed case.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the appeal was perfected on time: The plaintiffs-appellees invoked the fact that the record on appeal was filed in the trial court beyond the reglementary period, admitting a delay of fourteen (14) days. This fact was admitted. The trial court denied the motions to dismiss the appeal and for execution, stating that the notice of appeal and appeal bond were filed on time. However, the Supreme Court noted that the record on appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period. On Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction over the appealed case: It is a settled rule that the timely perfection of an appeal is a jurisdictional requisite for the appellate court to take cognizance of the case. In Government of the Philippines v. Luis Antonio, et al., G.R. No. L-23736, October 19, 1963, this Court held that unless the appeal is perfected on time, the appellate court acquires no jurisdiction over the appealed case and has power only to dismiss the appeal. The case of Santiago v. Valenzuela, 78 Phil. 397, cited by the appellant, was distinguished as the motion to dismiss was filed for the first time in the appellate court, and its ruling was subsequently abandoned in Miranda v. Guanzon and Valdez v. Acumen. Therefore, as prayed for, the appeal is dismissed.
Main Doctrine
The timely perfection of an appeal is a jurisdictional requisite for the appellate court to acquire jurisdiction over the appealed case; otherwise, the appeal must be dismissed.