Elizabeth Brual vs. Jorge Brual Contreras, et. Al.,
G.R. No. 205451, March 7, 2022
Facts:
1. Fausta Brual remained single during her lifetime and was under the care of her nephew, Ireneo Brual, and his wife Elizabeth Brual.
2. Elizabeth, as instituted heir and co-executor, filed before the RTC a petition for probate of the last will and testament of the late Fausta.
3. However, respondents, as nephews and nieces of Fausta, filed a manifestation and motion for intervention and supplemental allegations (in support of the manifestation and motion to intervene) before the probate court.
4. The RTC issued an Order/Resolution denying the respondents' motion for intervention and supplemental allegation.
5. The RTC held that Fausta, who died single and without compulsory heirs, may dispose of her entire estate by. Hence, the RTC did not find any compelling reason to grant the motion for intervention
6. Respondents then filed their motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the RTC.
7. Hence, the respondents filed their notice of appeal.
8. The RTC issued an Order dismissing respondents' appeal due to their failure to file a record on appeal pursuant to Sections 2 and 3 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
9. Undaunted, respondents filed their omnibus motion for reconsideration and admit records on appeal. It was their belief that the submission of a record on appeal would only come after the filing of the notice of appeal and payment of docket fees.
10. The RTC ultimately denied respondents' omnibus motion
11. Undeterred by the ruling of the RTC, respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the CA ascribing grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in denying their appeal
12. The CA granted respondents' petition and reversed and set aside the RTC's dismissal of respondents' appeal. It held that an appeal must not be dismissed based on mere procedural technicalities.
13. Elizabeth filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the CA. Hence, this instant petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC is correct in dismissing respondents’ appeal due to failure to file a record on appeal.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court held that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.
Under Section 2 of Rule 41, it states that: x x x No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where law on these Rules so require.
On the other hand, under Section 3 of Rule 41, a party who wants to appeal a judgment or final order in special proceedings has 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order within which to perfect an appeal because he will be filing not only a notice of appeal but also a record on appeal that will require the approval of the trial court with notice to the adverse party.
The rules are clear. While it is not necessary that a notice of appeal and a record on appeal be filed simultaneously, the rule is unequivocal that the notice of appeal and record of appeal shall be filed within 30 days from notice of the judgment or final order.
The period for appeal by record on appeal was 30 days from receipt of the notice of the final order dismissing the motion for intervention, or from November 15, 2010, the date respondents' counsel received the order of denial. Respondents had until December 15, 2010 within which to file their notice and record on appeal. Since they filed their motion for reconsideration on November 26, 2010, the period for filing of the appeal was duly interrupted. When respondents however received the final order denying their motion for reconsideration on January 24, 2011, the period to appeal, applying the fresh period rule, resumed and they had 30 days thereafter or until February 23, 2011 to perfect their appeal in accordance with the rules. Verily, respondents filed their notice of appeal on February 3, 2011 without a record on appeal. Thus, on April 27, 2011, the RTC dismissed the notice of appeal due to its non-perfection and failure to file the required record on appeal. It was only on June 27, 2011 that respondents filed their omnibus motion for reconsideration with motion to admit record on appeal while claiming inadve1ience and lack of knowledge on the timing of the filing of the record on appeal.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment