Appeals In Special Proceedings.docx

APPEALS IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – RULE 40, 41, 42, 45, 109

1. 2.

RULE 40 – APPEAL FROM MTC TO RTC SEC. 1 WHERE TO APPEAL o An appeal from a judgment or final order from the MTC may be taken to the RTC exercising jd over the area where MTC pertains o Title of the case shall remain as in the court of origin o Appellant – party appealing o Appellee – adverse party SEC. 2 WHEN TO APPEAL Notice on appeal – 15 days Record on appeal – 30 days o “When record on appeal is required, appellant shall file a notice of appeal AND a record on appeal within 30 days” o Period is interrupted only by a timely MNT or MR o No motion for extension of time SEC. 3. HOW TO APPEAL Notice on appeal – file a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the judgment or final order appeals from, indicating: 1. parties to the appeal 2. judgment or final order appealed from and 3. state the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal. Record on appeal – required only in special proceedings and in other cases of multiple or separate appeals. Form and contents (Sec. 6, Rule 41) SEC. 4. PERFECTION OF APPEAL Sec. 9, Rule 41

3. 4. 5.

Coc of RTC notifies parties upon receipt of records Within 15 days from such notice, appellant will submit a memorandum briefly discussing the errors imputed by the lower court and a copy furnished to the adverse party Within 15 days from receipt of appellants memorandum, appellee may file his memorandum. Failure to file is a ground for dismissal of appeal Upon the filing of the memorandum of the appellee or expiration of period, case shall be submitted for decision. RTC shall decide on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of original and such memoranda as are filed.

SEC. 8. APPEAL FROM ORDERS DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT TRIAL; LACK OF JD If an appeal is taken from an order of the LC dismissing the case without a trial on the merits, RTC may affirm or reverse. o AFFIRM and ground is lack of jd over the subject matter  RTC, if it has jurisdiction, shall try the case on the merits o REVERSE  remanded If an appeal is taken from an order tried on the merits by the LC without jd over the subject matter, RTC shall NOT dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction but shall decide the case in accordance with the preceding section, without prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence. RULE 41 – APPEAL FROM RTC SEC. 1. SUBJECT OF APPEAL May be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case or of a particular matter declared 1.

An order xxx

SEC. 2. MODES OF APPEAL Notice of appeal Perfected upon the filing of the notice of appeal in due time Court loses jd over the case upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the other parties

Record on appeal Perfected with respect to the subject matter upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time Court loses jd over the subject matter upon the approval of the records on appeal filed in due time and the expiration of the time to appeal of the parties.

SEC. 6. DUTY OF THE CLERK OF COURT o Transmit the original record or the record on appeal, transcripts and exhibits which he certified as complete to the proper RTC within 15 days from the perfection of the appeal SEC. 7. PROCEDURE IN THE RTC

1.

2.

3.

ORDINARY APPEAL – RTC to CA in cases it decided in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order. PETITION FOR REVIEW – RTC to CA in cases It decided in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in accordance with Rule 42 APPEAL BY CERTIORARI – Cases where only question of law are raised or involved to the SC by Rule 45.

SEC. 6 RECORD ON APPEAL; FORM AND CONTENTS THEREOF 1. Full names of all the parties shall be stated in the caption of the record on appeal 2. Including the judgment or final order from which the appeal is taken and in chronological order, copies of only such pleadings, orders which are related to the appeal judgment

3.

If it involves an issue of fact – the record on appeal shall include by reference all the evidence, testimonial and documentary evidence.

SEC. 7. APPROVAL OF RECORD ON APPEAL o Upon the filing of the record on appeal and no objection within 5 days of the receipt of the copy, the trial court may approve it as presented or upon its own motion or at the instance of the appellee, may direct its amendment by the inclusion of any omitted matters deemed to be essential. o AMENDMENT  SEC. 10. DUTY OF THE CLERK OF COURT OF THE LC UPON PERFECTION OF APPEAL Within 30 days after perfection of all the appeals, it shall be the duty of the COC to: 1. Verify xxx

CA may set the case for oral argument or require the parties to submit memoranda within 15 days from notice. RULE 45 – APPEAL BY CERTIOARI TO THE SUPREME COURT SEC. 1. FILING OF PETITION WITH SC o A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the CA, Sandiganbayan, RTC or other courts whenever authorized by law. o Only raise questions of law SEC. 6. REVIEW DISCRETIONARY A

RULE 109 RULE 42 – PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE RTC TO CA SEC. 1. HOW APPEAL TAKEN; TIME FOR FILING o A party desiring to appeal from a decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file o Verified petition for review with the CA o Pay to the COC the corresponding docket and other lawful fees o Deposit of 500 for costs o Furnish RTC and adverse party with a copy of the petition. o Filed and served within 15 days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial. SEC 2. FORM AND CONTENTS SEC. 3. EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS Ground for dismissal if the following are not complied with: 1. Payment of the docket and other lawful fees 2. Deposit for costs 3. Proof of service of the petition 4. Contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition. SEC. 8. PERFECTION OF APPEAL; EFFECT THEREOF o Perfected as to the petitioner upon the timely filing of a petition for review and the payment of the corresponding docket and other lawful fees. o RTC loses jd upon the perfection of the appeals filed in due time or expiration of the time to file. o However before the CA gives due course to the petition, RTC may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated. SEC. 9. SUBMISSION FOR DECISION

WHO MAY APPEAL o An interested person may appeal in special proceedings from an order or judgment rendered by the court. If it is an ordinary appeal under Rule 40 or 41, and the special proceedings are subject to multiple appeals (settlement of estates), the appeal period is 30 days, a notice of appeal and a record on appeal being required. RATIONALE OF ALLOWING MORE THAN 1 APPEAL IN THE SAME CASE: To enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the court and held to be final. In this multi-appeal mode, the probate court loses jurisdiction over the special proceeding from which the appeal was taken for purposes of further remedies the parties may avail of. CASES 1.

Aranas v. Mercado

Main Topic: Distinguish Final and Interlocutory Order; Section 1, Rule 41, Rules of Court; Section 6(a), Rule 78 of the Rules of Court; Rule 83-Section 1 of the Rules of Court F: Emigdio S. Mercado died intestate on January 12, 1991, survived by his second wife, Teresita V. Mercado, and their five children, namely: Allan, Felimon, Carmencita, Richard, and Maria Teresita; and his two children by his first marriage, namely: respondent Franklin and petitioner Thelma. Emigdio inherited and acquired real properties during his lifetime. He owned corporate shares in Mervir Realty Corporation and Cebu Emerson Transportation Corporation. He assigned his real properties in exchange for corporate stocks of Mervir Realty, and sold his real property in Badian, Cebu to Mervir Realty.

On June 3, 1991, Thelma filed in the RTC in Cebu City a petition for the appointment of Teresita as the administrator of Emigdio’s estate. The RTC granted the petition. As the administrator, Teresita submitted an inventory of the estate of Emigdio on December 14, 1992 for the consideration and approval by the RTC. She indicated in the inventory that at the time of his death, Emigdio had “left no real properties but only personal properties” worth P6,675,435.25 in all. Claiming that Emigdio had owned other properties that were excluded from the inventory, Thelma moved that the RTC direct Teresita to amend the inventory, and to be examined regarding it. The RTC granted Thelma’s motion. RTC issued an order finding and holding that the inventory submitted by Teresita had excluded properties that should be included and directs the said administratrix to render an account of her administration of the estate of the late Emigdio which had come to her possession. I: (1) Was certiorari the proper recourse to assail the questioned orders of the RTC? (2) Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in directing the inclusion of the properties in the estate of the decedent?

1 Section 1. Subject of appeal.— An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. No appeal may be taken from: (a) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment; (b) An interlocutory order; (c) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal; (d) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress, or any other ground vitiating consent; (e) An order of execution; (f) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross–claims and third–party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and (g) An order dismissing an action without prejudice. In any of the foregoing circumstances, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action as provided in Rule 65.

2 In Pahila–Garrido v. Tortogo,16 the Court distinguished between final and interlocutory orders as follows: The distinction between a final order and an interlocutory order is well known. The first disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or action, leaving nothing more to be done except to enforce by execution what the

R: (1) Affirmative. The propriety of the special civil action for certiorari as a remedy depended on whether the assailed orders of the RTC were final1 or interlocutory in nature2. The remedy against an interlocutory order not subject of an appeal is an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65, provided that the interlocutory order is rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. Then is certiorari under Rule 65 allowed to be resorted to. The assailed order denying Teresita’s motion for the approval of the inventory and the order denying her motion for reconsideration were interlocutory. This is because the inclusion of the properties in the inventory was not yet a final determination of their ownership. Hence, the approval of the inventory and the concomitant determination of the ownership as basis for inclusion or exclusion from the inventory were provisional and subject to revision at anytime during the course of the administration proceedings. (2) Negative. The determination of which properties should be excluded from or included in the inventory of estate properties was well within the authority and discretion of the RTC3 as an intestate court. In making its determination, the RTC acted with circumspection, and proceeded under the guiding policy that it was best to include all properties in the possession of the administrator or were known to the administrator to belong to Emigdio rather than to exclude properties that could turn out in the end to be actually part of the estate. As long as

court has determined, but the latter does not completely dispose of the case but leaves something else to be decided upon. An interlocutory order deals with preliminary matters and the trial on the merits is yet to be held and the judgment rendered. The test to ascertain whether or not an order or a judgment is interlocutory or final is: does the order or judgment leave something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, the order or judgment is interlocutory; otherwise, it is final.

3 Under Section 6(a), Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, the letters of administration may be granted at the discretion of the court to the surviving spouse, who is competent and willing to serve when the person dies intestate. Upon issuing the letters of administration to the surviving spouse, the RTC becomes duty–bound to direct the preparation and submission of the inventory of the properties of the estate, and the surviving spouse, as the administrator, has the duty and responsibility to submit the inventory within three months from the issuance of letters of administration pursuant to Rule 83 of the Rules of Court; viz: Section 1. Inventory and appraisal to be returned within three months. – Within three (3) months after his appointment every executor or administrator shall return to the court a true inventory and appraisal of all the real and personal estate of the deceased which has come into his possession or knowledge. In the appraisement of such estate, the court may order one or more of the inheritance tax appraisers to give his or their assistance.

the RTC commits no patent grave abuse of discretion, its orders must be respected as part of the regular performance of its judicial duty. The objective of the Rules of Court in requiring the inventory and appraisal of the estate of the decedent is “to aid the court in revising the accounts and determining the liabilities of the executor or the administrator, and in making a final and equitable distribution (partition) of the estate and otherwise to facilitate the administration of the estate.”4 2.

Sps. Lebin v. Mirasol

DOCTRINE: The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. FACTS: 1. In a special proceedings case involving the settlement of the estate of the late L.J. Hodges, the RTC Branch 27 of Iloilo City issued an order dated May 3, 1995. 2.

May 23, 1995 Sps Lebin moved for reconsideration and/or new trial.

3.

March 2, 1998 RTC denied MR/MNT

4.

March 27, 1998 Sps Lebin filed a notice of appeal in the RTC

5.

May 5, 1998 Also filed a record on appeal

6.

Jan 25, 1999 Presented an ex parte motion to approve the record on appeal

7.

Mirasol filed MTD on the ground that the record on appeal had been filed late

8.

RTC granted MTD

9.

MR denied

ISSUE: WON Sps Lebin failed to timely file a record on appeal RULING + RATIO: YES  Among the innovations introduced by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 is the elimination of the record on appeal in most cases, retaining the record on appeal only for appeals in special proceedings and in other cases in which the Rules of Court allows multiple appeals. 4 Siy Chong Keng v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 60 Phil. 493, 500 (1934).



A judgment or final order in special proceedings is appealed by record on appeal. A judgment or final order determining and terminating a particular part is usually appealable, because it completely disposes of a particular matter in the proceeding, unless otherwise declared by the Rules of Court. The ostensible reason for requiring a record on appeal instead of only a notice of appeal is the multi--part nature of nearly all special proceedings, with each part



susceptible of being finally determined and terminated independently of the other parts. a. An appeal by notice of appeal is a mode that envisions the elevation of the original records to the appellate court as to thereby obstruct the trial court in its further proceedings regarding the other parts of the case. b. In contrast, the record on appeal enables the trial court to continue with the rest of the case because the original records remain with the trial court even as it affords to the appellate court the full opportunity to review and decide the appealed matter. Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, retains the original 30 days as the period for perfecting the appeal by record on appeal to take into consideration the need for the trial court to approve the record on appeal. Within that 30--day period a party aggrieved by a judgment or final order issued in special proceedings should perfect an appeal by filing both a notice of appeal and a record on appeal in the trial court, serving a copy of the notice of appeal and a record on appeal upon the adverse party within the period;; in addition, the appealing party shall pay within the period for taking an appeal to the clerk of the court that rendered the appealed judgment or final order the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. A violation of these requirements for the timely perfection of an appeal by record on appeal, or the non--payment of the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees to the clerk of the trial court may be a ground for the dismissal of the appeal.

IN THIS CASE  Although they filed a notice of appeal on March 27, 1998, they submitted the record on appeal only on May 5, 1998. Undoubtedly, they filed the record on appeal 43 days from March 23, 1998, the date they received the denial of their motion for reconsideration and/or new trial. They should have filed the record on appeal within 30 days from their notice of the judgment. Their appeal was not perfected, therefore, because their filing of the record on appeal happened beyond the end of their period for the perfection of their appeal. The petitioners filing of the motion for reconsideration vis----vis the order of May 3, 1995 interrupted the running of the period of 30 days;; hence, their period to appeal started to run from May 15, 1995, the date they received the order of May 3, 1995. They filed their motion for reconsideration on May 24, 1995. By then, nine days out of their 30--day period to appeal already elapsed. They received a copy of the order dated March 2, 1998 on March 23, 1998. Thus, the period to appeal resumed from March 23, 1998 and ended 21 days later, or on April 13, 1998. Yet, they filed their

record on appeal only on May 5, 1998 or 22 days beyond the end of their reglementary period. Although, by that time, the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure had meanwhile taken effect, their period of appeal remained 30 days. In order to come up with the record on appeal, the petitioners were not expected to reproduce over 18 volumes of the records for their record on appeal would have included only the records of the trial court which the appellate court would be asked to pass upon.

3. 4. 5.

Briones v. Henson-Cruz Republic v. Nishina Quasha Law Office et. Al. V. LCN Construction