Anota v. Bermudo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involves a complaint for partition of Cadastral Lot No. 2274 of the Cadastral Survey of Tacloban. The decision rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila ordered the partition of the said lot and required the parties to submit a corresponding project of partition. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on March 1, 1968, on the ground that the record on appeal did not sufficiently demonstrate that the appeal was perfected on time. A subsequent motion for reconsideration filed by the petitioners was also denied by the Court of Appeals. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek review by certiorari of the resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing their appeal. They contend that the Court of Appeals erred in its dismissal. However, the record on appeal, as presented, fails to clearly indicate the dates on which the petitioners received notice of the trial court's decision and the order denying their motion for reconsideration, which are crucial for establishing the timeliness of the appeal. Furthermore, the decision of the trial court was interlocutory, as it ordered a partition and required a project of partition, making it not yet appealable.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal due to the record on appeal not showing timely perfection. Whether the decision of the Court of First Instance in the partition case was final and appealable.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. The decision of the Court of First Instance was interlocutory and not appealable.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the Court of Appeals' dismissal of the appeal: The Court found that the record on appeal did not contain sufficient data to establish the timely perfection of the appeal. Specifically, the dates when the petitioners received notice of the trial court's decision dated April 5, 1965, and the order dated July 26, 1965, denying their motion for reconsideration were not shown. The period for appeal is computed from the date of receipt of notice of the judgment or order. Without these dates, it is impossible to determine if the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period. The record showed a 39-day gap between the decision and the motion for reconsideration, and a significant delay between the denial of the motion and the filing of the notice of appeal, further supporting the dismissal. On the appealability of the trial court's decision: The Court held that the decision of the Court of First Instance was not final but interlocutory. The action commenced was for partition, and the decision provided for the partition of a specific lot and required the parties to submit a project of partition. Such a decision is not appealable until after the filing and approval of the project of partition and the rendition of a final judgment in accordance with Section 7, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, even if the appeal had been perfected on time, it would have been dismissed for being premature.
Main Doctrine
A decision ordering the partition of property is interlocutory and not appealable until the filing and approval of the project of partition and the rendition of a final judgment.