GR 137122; (November, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 137122 ; November 15, 2000
MANILA MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERY, INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, BERNARDO, DOMINADOR, HERMOGENA LUCIA, and MARIA GATCHALIAN, and the HEIRS OF GREGORIO GATCHALIAN: ROLANDO, CONRADO and ARTURO, all surnamed GATCHALIAN, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents filed an action for reconveyance and recovery of land against petitioner and others. The trial court dismissed the complaint on June 17, 1983. Respondents received the decision on July 4, 1983, and on the last day of the appeal period, July 19, 1983, they filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration. This motion was denied by the trial court on October 3, 1989, with respondents receiving the order on November 28, 1989. Respondents then filed a notice of appeal on December 7, 1989, which the trial court gave due course to on December 11, 1989.
The records could not be transmitted to the Court of Appeals due to missing transcripts. Years later, on February 28, 1997, respondents filed a motion for new trial to retake evidence, as reconstitution was impossible. Petitioner, on April 22, 1997, filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for being filed out of time. The trial court granted the motion for new trial and denied the motion to dismiss, declaring the notice of appeal moot. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s subsequent certiorari petition, holding petitioner was estopped by laches from assailing the appeal’s timeliness after nearly eight years.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner was estopped by laches from assailing the timeliness of respondents’ appeal.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is a jurisdictional requirement. Non-compliance renders the trial court’s decision final and executory, depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. This jurisdictional defect can be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal, and cannot be waived by the parties. The Court held that the doctrine of laches cannot be invoked to defeat the right to assail a void judgment or a judgment rendered without jurisdiction. The period for appeal is fixed by law and cannot be extended by mere equitable grounds.
The Court found that respondents’ notice of appeal was filed out of time. Their motion for new trial or reconsideration, filed on the last day of the appeal period, did not toll the running of the period because it was a mere scrap of paper; it failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, specifically the requirement of notice of hearing to the adverse party. Consequently, the trial court’s decision became final and executory fifteen days after July 4, 1983. The notice of appeal filed on December 7, 1989 was therefore invalid. The trial court’s grant of a new trial and the appellate court’s application of laches could not cure this fatal jurisdictional defect.