G.R. No. L-5006
ALEJANDRA POLICARPIO, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LUIS BORJA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
March 22, 1910

FACTS:
In a civil action before the Justice of the Peace (JP) of Gapan, Luis Borja obtained a judgment against Alejandra Policarpio. Policarpio was notified of this judgment on July 24, 1908. The last day to appeal, which was the fifteenth day, fell on Saturday, August 8, 1908. On that afternoon, Policarpio met the JP in a private house, stating her intention to appeal. The JP, apparently in good faith but mistakenly believing it was still within the legal period, told her to return the following Monday. Policarpio did not return on Monday. On Tuesday, upon Borja’s petition, the JP ordered the execution of the judgment.

Policarpio subsequently filed a suit in the Court of First Instance (CFI) to annul the JP’s judgment, arguing that the JP’s error in computing the appeal period prevented her from filing her appeal in time. The CFI ruled in Policarpio’s favor, annulling the JP’s judgment, concluding that Policarpio was prevented from appealing due to error “either on his part or through error of the justice of the peace.” The defendants (Borja et al.) appealed this CFI decision to the Supreme Court.

During the trial, Policarpio testified that on August 8, she carried her written appeal and showed it to the JP, who did not receive it. However, she admitted she took no sureties with her, nor did she make any intimation of a wish to deliver money (for the docket fee or bond). The JP, on the other hand, testified that Policarpio presented no document or bond, and merely stated her wish to appeal, leading him to tell her to return on Monday because “he brought nothing with him on that occasion.” Section 16 of Act No. 1627 (amending Act No. 190 ) requires that an appeal be perfected by filing a notice of intent to appeal, depositing a P16 docket fee, and filing a P50 bond or a P25 certificate of deposit.

ISSUE:
Whether Alejandra Policarpio was prevented from perfecting her appeal to the Court of First Instance due to the error of the Justice of the Peace.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance and denied Policarpio’s petition.

The Court held that even assuming Policarpio’s testimony was entirely true, all she did on August 8 amounted to “no more than a mere intention to appeal, which was not carried out, or at least was not effected in the manner required by law.” She neither deposited the P16 docket fee, executed the required P50 bond, nor even made the slightest intimation that she was willing to comply with these essential requirements for perfecting an appeal as mandated by Section 16 of Act No. 1627 . Policarpio herself admitted she had no sureties and did not offer any money.

The Court found that Policarpio failed to comply with any of the essential formalities prescribed by law for the perfection of an appeal. The JP’s instruction to return on Monday was not the reason the appeal was not filed within the legal term; it was because Policarpio did not formally file the appeal by fulfilling the necessary legal steps. Therefore, it was not proven that Policarpio was prevented through error or other cause not imputable to herself from filing the appeal in due time.