Case Digest (G.R. No. L-29416)
Facts:
The case at bar is titled Celso Valera vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals (Fourth Division), Adoracion Valera De Bringas and Romeo R. Bringas and was resolved by the Supreme Court of the Philippines on January 28, 1971, with G.R. No. L-29416. The factual background reveals that on November 12, 1965, the Court of First Instance of Abra decided Civil Case No. 374, ruling that Adoracion Valera De Bringas was the acknowledged natural child of Francisco Valera. The decision mandated the defendants—Virgilio Valera, Celso Valera (the petitioner), and Mercedes Angco Vda. de Valera—to acknowledge Adoracion as such while dismissing the counterclaims from Virgilio and Celso for lack of merit. The court’s decision was served on the defendants on November 15, 1965. Celso Valera filed a notice of appeal and an appeal bond on December 14, 1965, alongside a request for a 30-day extension to submit his record on appeal, which was granted on January 14, 1966. Subsequently, he was ordered to amendCase Digest (G.R. No. L-29416)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- On November 12, 1965, the Court of First Instance of Abra rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 374.
- The decision declared that Adoracion Valera de Bringas was the acknowledged natural child of Francisco Valera.
- The decision further directed defendants Virgilio Valera, Celso Valera, and Mercedes Angco Vda. de Valera to “recognize” Adoracion as the acknowledged natural child of Francisco Valera.
- The counterclaim and cross-claim of defendants Virgilio and Celso Valera were dismissed for lack of merit, without any special pronouncement as to costs.
- Service and Notice of Appeal
- A copy of the decision was served on November 15, 1965, upon defendants Virgilio Valera and Celso Valera.
- Celso Valera filed his notice of appeal and submitted the appeal bond on December 14, 1965, while also requesting a 30-day extension to file his record on appeal.
- The trial court granted this extension on January 14, 1966.
- Filing and Amendment of the Record on Appeal
- The original record on appeal was filed by Celso Valera, but the precise filing date was not clearly indicated or stated on its face.
- On March 18, 1966, the lower court ordered the amendment of the record on appeal, which was subsequently approved on June 28, 1966.
- The amended record on appeal, however, failed to show on its face that the original record on appeal was filed within the timeframe provided by the granted extension.
- Certification Issue
- Although there was a certification by the clerk of the trial court indicating that the original record on appeal had been filed on January 7, 1966, this certification was not considered sufficient to cure the defect in the amended record on appeal.
- Proceedings in the Appellate Court
- Filing of the Motion to Dismiss
- On December 20, 1967, the appellees (plaintiffs in the trial court proceeding) filed a motion before the Court of Appeals, seeking the dismissal of Celso Valera’s appeal on the ground that the record on appeal did not, on its face, evidence timely perfection of the appeal.
- Court of Appeals’ Actions
- On January 11, 1968, the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals denied the dismissal motion but instructed that the issue be considered when the case was assigned for decision on the merits.
- A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on March 7, 1968.
- Final Dismissal
- By a resolution dated July 16, 1968, the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 50, section 1(a), in relation to Rule 41, section 6 of the Rules of Court.
Issues:
- Timeliness and Perfection of the Appeal
- Whether the failure of the amended record on appeal to state the filing date of the original record on appeal constitutes a fatal defect.
- Whether the omission breaches the mandatory and jurisdictional requirements of Section 6 of Rule 41 and Section 1(a) of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.
- Sufficiency of the Certification
- Whether the certification by the trial court clerk, stating that the original record on appeal was filed on January 7, 1966, could cure the defect in the amended record on appeal.
- Appellate Jurisdiction
- Whether the appellate court can exercise jurisdiction over the appeal when there is a failure to show that the appeal was perfected within the reglementary period.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)