Case Digest (G.R. No. L-66242)
Facts:
Heirs of Cornelio Labrada v. The Honorable Sinforiano A. Monsanto and The Heirs of Isabel Yboa, G.R. No. L-66242, August 31, 1984, Supreme Court First Division, Teehankee, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the Heirs of Cornelio Labrada, represented by Natividad L. Diocton; respondents are the Heirs of Isabel Yboa, represented by Tito V. Tizon; and the respondent judge is Sinforiano A. Monsanto, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch XXVII, Catbalogan, Samar. The dispute concerns Lot No. 1910 of the Catbalogan Cadastral Survey.
The antecedent events began with both predecessors-in-interest filing answers in the cadastral proceedings in June 1932. Petitioners asserted continuous possession of the lot since about 1894 through Cornelio Labrada, his son Meliton and Meliton’s heirs. Respondents claimed competing title but, according to petitioners, none of respondents’ heirs occupied the lot. In 1973 petitioners moved to have the case heard by the Court of First Instance of Samar; the parties then presented oral and documentary evidence.
The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment on July 11, 1983 in favor of respondents. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal on August 6, 1983, invoking the Interim Rules and requesting elevation of the record to the Intermediate Appellate Court. On September 14, 1983 respondents moved for issuance of a decree of registration, arguing petitioners had not perfected any appeal because they failed to file a record on appeal. The trial court agreed that cadastral appeals involved “multiple appeals” and required a record on appeal, granted respondents’ motion, and ordered the decree of registration and issuance of certificate of title. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and they filed the present petition with the Court seeking to set aside the trial court’s orders.
The controversy implicated the Appellate Procedure portions of the Interim Rules and Guidelines (adopted January 11, 1983) — especially sections 18 and 19 — and Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981), which prescribe a 15-day appeal period and dispense with the record on appeal except in specified cases. The trial court r...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under the Interim Rules and Guidelines and Section 39 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, may an appeal from a regional trial court decision in cadastral proceedings be taken by filing a simple notice of appeal within fifteen (15) days, or does it fall within the exception (special proceedings/multiple appeals) requiring the filing of a record on appeal within thirty (30) days?
- Did the Regional Trial Court err in denying due course to petitioners’ appeal and ordering the issuance of a decree of registration and...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)