Case Digest (G.R. No. 182795)
Facts:
Arturo Santos, Delfin Granada, Rene Julio, Dante Zotomayor, Jesse Acapulco, Nene Julio, Dely Julio, Ronaldo Catindig and Renato Catindig v. Court of Appeals, Hon. Zorayda Herradura‑Salcedo, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, and Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, represented by its Mayor, Rodolfo S. San Luis, G.R. No. 114726, February 14, 1996, Supreme Court Third Division, Panganiban, J., writing for the Court.In November 1992 the Municipality of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, represented by Mayor Rodolfo S. San Luis, filed before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Cruz an unlawful detainer complaint (Civil Case No. 2322) against petitioners, alleging the municipality was the registered owner of two parcels (Tax Declarations Nos. 12065 and 13088) on which petitioners had been allowed to build by tolerance and refusing the municipality’s repeated demands to vacate for road‑widening/public market purposes.
Petitioners answered, contending the municipality was never the registered owner, asserting long possession in the concept of owner for more than fifty years, challenging the MTC’s jurisdiction as the dispute involved ownership, and advising that they had filed a quieting of title action in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). On June 24, 1993 the MTC ordered petitioners to vacate and to pay monthly rentals of P500 from filing until final vacation.
Petitioners filed a notice of appeal and a supersedeas bond; the MTC on July 20, 1993 transmitted the original records to the RTC pursuant to paragraph 21 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines implementing B.P. Blg. 129. On September 15, 1993 the RTC, Branch 27, dismissed the appeal for failure to pay the corresponding appeal fee; its denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration followed on October 27, 1993.
On November 25, 1993 petitioners sought relief in the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion; the Court of Appeals (Ninth Division) dismissed the petition in its March 8, 1994 decision. Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court under Rule 45. The Munici...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does Rule 141 as amended require the payment of an appeal fee for appeals taken from the Municipal Trial Court to the Regional Trial Court?
- Does the non‑payment of the appeal fee automatically result in the dismissal of an appeal from the Municipal Trial Court to the R...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)