Reyes v. Sta. Maria
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership of two parcels of land. The respondent, Maria Reyes Vda. de Sayo, as plaintiff, sued the petitioners, as defendants, in Civil Case No. 2599. The trial court declared the plaintiff the absolute owner of the disputed parcels of land and ordered the defendants to pay P200.00 for the fruits gathered from the property. A preliminary injunction issued in favor of the plaintiff was made permanent. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners were notified of the trial court's decision on July 3, 1967. On July 25, 1967, within the reglementary period for appeal, they filed an urgent motion to appeal as pauper and a motion for a thirty-day extension to file their record on appeal. Due to the presiding judge's vacation, these motions were not acted upon before the original appeal period expired. Subsequently, the respondent filed a motion to deny the appeal and issue a writ of execution, arguing the decision had become final. On October 31, 1967, the trial court denied the motion to appeal as pauper and dismissed the appeal, ordering a writ of execution. A motion for reconsideration was denied on May 4, 1968. The petitioners then filed another notice of appeal and a motion for approval of their record on appeal on May 13, 1968, which were also denied on June 25, 1968, on the grounds that the appeal had already been dismissed and reconsideration denied. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a special civil action for mandamus, seeking to compel the respondent Judge to approve their record on appeal and to stop the execution of the judgment. They argue that the period for perfecting their appeal was interrupted by the filing of their motions to appeal as pauper and for an extension, and that the trial court's inaction meant the reglementary period did not continue to run until they received notice of the denial of these motions. The core issue is whether the filing of these motions, which were not acted upon within the original appeal period, suspended the running of the time to perfect the appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a motion to appeal as a pauper and for an extension of time to file a record on appeal suspends the running of the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed with costs against the petitioners. The order of the respondent Judge dated June 25, 1968 dismissing the appeal and ordering issuance of the writ of execution is affirmed. Mandamus is denied; the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the filing of a motion for extension of time to perfect an appeal does not suspend the running of the original period. Citing established jurisprudence such as Escolin v. Garduño and Cumplido v. Mendoza, the Court emphasized that an appellant has the affirmative duty to ascertain the status of their motion. Since the granting of an extension or the permission to appeal as a pauper is entirely discretionary, an appellant who relies on the mere filing of such motions does so at their own peril. If the court does not act on the motion or denies it after the 30-day period has lapsed, the right to appeal is lost and the decision becomes final and executory. The Court further noted that the Judge's absence did not excuse the petitioners, as they could have sought action from other judges in the district as provided under Section 88 of the Judiciary Act. Ultimately, even considering the requested 30-day extension, the petitioners failed to file their record on appeal within that self-imposed timeframe. Because the judgment had already become final, the respondent Judge committed no grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal, and mandamus will not lie to compel the approval of a lost appeal.
Main Doctrine
The filing of a motion to be allowed to appeal as pauper or for extension of time to file the record on appeal, even if filed within the reglementary period, does not by itself suspend the running of the period for perfecting the appeal; the appellant must ensure timely resolution or take other steps to preserve the appeal, and failure to file the record within the period fixed or requested results in loss of the right to appeal.