G.R. No. L-30345 - Tanalega vs. Tizon

The private respondents, Antonio and Nellie C. Delgado, filed a civil case against the petitioners, Thelma Tanalega and Fernando Roman.
On July 16, 1968, the respondent Judge rendered a decision favoring the private respondents, declaring the reopening of Cadastral Case No. 19 as null and void.
The decision revoked the original certificate of title issued to the petitioners and declared the private respondents as the lawful owners of Lot No. 592.

The petitioners received a copy of the decision on July 23, 1968, and filed a motion to set aside the decision on August 10, 1968, citing it as contrary to law and unsupported by evidence.
The motion was denied on November 11, 1968, and the petitioners filed a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and a motion for a 15-day extension on November 22, 1968.
The Judge granted the extension on November 26, 1968, and the petitioners submitted their record on appeal on December 5, 1968.

On January 27, 1969, the Judge denied the approval of the record on appeal, stating that there was no proof that the record was filed within the reglementary period.
The Judge emphasized that the burden of showing a timely appeal lies with the appellant, and failure to meet this requirement is fatal to the appeal.

The court noted that the requirement for the record on appeal to show timely perfection is mandatory and jurisdictional.
The appellate court cannot acquire jurisdiction over an appeal unless it is perfected on time, and the trial court's certification after the appeal period cannot restore lost jurisdiction.

The doctrine cited by the respondent Judge regarding the necessity of showing timely perfection of the appeal was deemed inapplicable in this case.
The record on appeal, while not explicitly showing timely perfection, was still within the jurisdiction of the trial court, which had the means to verify the timeliness of the appeal.

The trial court is permitted to take judicial notice of its records and ascertain whether the appeal was perfected on time.
The court highlighted that failure to include necessary data in the record on appeal should not lead to outright dismissal when the records are still with the trial court.

The respondent Judge had previously granted an extension for the filing of the record on appeal, indicating awar...continue reading