Borre v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners filed a complaint against Manotok Services, Inc. (Manotok) to recover rentals paid, alleging that the land they leased from Manotok was public land and not owned by the company. Procedural History: The trial court dismissed the complaint, citing Presidential Decree No. 1670, which declared the expropriated property as formerly owned by Manotok Realty, Inc. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing that the lots were portions of esteros and thus public property. The trial court denied the motions. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal and a motion for extension by registered mail on January 31, 1981, the last day to perfect their appeal. However, they filed their appeal bond on February 2, 1981, two days late. The trial court dismissed their appeal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. The Petition: Petitioners sought review, contending that the late filing of the appeal bond was due to "excusable negligence" based on an "honest belief" that the Clerk of Court's office was closed on Saturday, January 31, 1981, and invoked the policy of liberal application of remedial rules.
Issue(s)
Whether the appeal was perfected on time. Whether the petitioners are estopped from questioning the title of their landlord.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of timely perfection of appeal: The Court held that the perfection of an appeal within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. Section 13, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that if the notice of appeal, appeal bond, or record on appeal is not filed within the prescribed period, the appeal shall be dismissed. In this case, although the notice of appeal was filed within the reglementary period, the appeal bond was filed two days late. The petitioners' belief that the Clerk of Court's office was closed on a Saturday, which was the last day to perfect their appeal, did not constitute "excusable negligence." As practitioners in Metro Manila, they were expected to know or inquire about court office hours on Saturdays. Therefore, the trial judge committed no error in dismissing the appeal, and the decision of the trial court became final and executory on January 31, 1981. The Court reiterated that the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with law, citing Reyes v. Carrasco and Bello v. Fernando. On the issue of estoppel against tenant: The Court upheld the dismissal of the petitioners' complaint on the ground of failure to state a cause of action, independent of Presidential Decree No. 1670 which was later declared null and void. The petitioners' complaint was premised on the theory that the leased lands were public land, not belonging to the private respondent. However, they admitted in their complaint that they were leasing the property from Manotok Services, Inc. The Court invoked the conclusive presumption under Rule 131, Section 3(b) of the Rules of Court, which states that a tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the landlord-tenant relationship. This rule estops the tenant from asserting a better title not only in themselves but also in a third person, including the State, citing Zobel v. Mercado. The Court clarified that this rule applies unless the landlord's title has expired, been conveyed, or defeated by a paramount title subsequent to the lease. Since the petitioners did not claim any change in Manotok's title during the subsistence of the lease, they were estopped from asserting that the land belonged to the State.
Main Doctrine
The perfection of an appeal within the period prescribed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to file the appeal bond on time results in the dismissal of the appeal, rendering the decision final and executory. A tenant is estopped from denying the title of their landlord at the commencement of the tenancy relationship, unless the landlord's title has expired, been conveyed, or defeated by a paramount title subsequent to the lease.