GR L 35718; (November, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-35718 November 19, 1982
Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Director of Lands vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al.
FACTS
The Republic, as petitioner, appealed an adverse decision from the Court of First Instance of Laguna in a reversion case concerning a 1.42-hectare foreshore land. The Republic’s Record on Appeal, approved by the trial court, failed to state the number of days granted by the court for a second extension to file said record. While the appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals, private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal based on this omission. The appellate court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, subsequently denying the Republic’s motion for reconsideration.
The underlying case involves a claim for annulment of title and reversion, with the government asserting that the land, occupied by about 100 families, is foreshore and was adjudicated by the land registration court without jurisdiction. A writ of preliminary injunction had been issued to prevent the eviction of these occupants pending the appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the failure to state in the Record on Appeal data showing the timeliness of its perfection is fatal to the appeal.
RULING
No, the omission is not fatal. The Supreme Court set aside the appellate court’s resolutions and reinstated the appeal. The Court abandoned its previous rigid interpretation of Section 6, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which required the Record on Appeal to show data proving the appeal was perfected on time. Following the doctrine established in Berkenkotter vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that the trial court’s approval of the Record on Appeal carries with it the presumption that it was filed on time. The approval implies that the court found the appeal to have been timely perfected. No trial judge would approve a record that was not timely filed.
The Court emphasized the principle of substantial justice, noting the discretion granted to courts to extend filing periods and the serious public interest involved in the case, which concerns government land and the welfare of numerous families facing eviction. Dismissing the appeal on a technicality would not serve the ends of justice. The appeal was therefore reinstated for resolution on its merits.