G.R. No. L-37229 - Heirs of Morales vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioners are the heirs of Ceferino Morales, represented by Marcelina Salvador, Vda. de Morales.
Respondents consist of private parties, including Purita Morales, Floro Morales, Eustaquio Morales, Enriqueta Morales, Gorgonia Morales, Narciso Morales, Presentacion Morales, Santiago Morales, Clara Bustamante, Sofia Bustamante, Victor Palma Gil, Josefina Palma Gil, and Encarnacion Logano.
The petition is a review on certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of petitioners’ appeal in CA-G.R. No. 52127-R, primarily due to alleged deficiencies in the record on appeal.

The controversy involves a land parcel measuring 220,261 square meters that was originally owned by the late Graciana Morales, the predecessor-in-interest of the private respondents.
During his lifetime, Ceferino Morales, appointed as administrator for Graciana Morales’s estate, claimed absolute ownership of the land when cadastral proceedings commenced in Mati, Davao Oriental in 1959.
The Court of First Instance of Davao Oriental found that Ceferino Morales’ acquisition was fraudulent and contrary to law, nullifying his registration and ordering the land to be registered in favor of the private respondents.

Petitioners appealed the trial court’s ruling to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, citing a fatal defect in the record on appeal, particularly its failure to indicate the date when petitioners received the trial court decision (dated August 1, 1972).
Although the printed record included statements about the timely filing of the Notice of Appeal and the posting of the appeal bond, it omitted the specific receipt date of the trial court decision.

Petitioners’ counsel acknowledged typographical errors in the record, and these errors were corrected.
On November 9, 1972, the trial court approved the record on appeal in an order, confirming that the notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal were filed within the reglementary period.
No objection was raised by the respondents regarding the approval order, which thus became a part of both the original and printed records on appeal.

Section 6, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court mandates that the record on appeal must include data sufficient to show that the appeal was perfected on time.
The rule is intended to enable appellate courts to determine timeliness based solely on the record on appeal without recourse to the trial court’s complete records.
Precedents such as Pimentel v. Court of Appeals and others clarify that trial court approval of the record on appeal, if undisputed, verifies timely filing notwithstanding minor omissions in the record itself.

Whether the omission of the receipt date of the trial court decision in petitioners’ record on appeal constitutes a fatal defect under Section 6, Rule 41.
Whether the mere statement that the Notice of Appeal was filed “within the reglementary period” is a sufficient substitute for the missing data.

Whether the order approving the record on appeal by the trial court, which confirmed the timely filing despite typographical errors, can cure the prior omission.
Whether the appellate court should rely on the trial court’s approved order to determine the perfection of the appeal.

Whether the requirements of Section 6, Rule 41 should operate differently in cadastral cases as opposed to ordinary cases.
Whether the strict application of the material data rule is justified in the context of cadastral disputes.