G.R. No. 103028 October 10, 1997
CARLOTA DELGADO VDA. DE DELA ROSA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF MARCIANA RUSTIA VDA. DE DAMIAN, namely: GUILLERMO R. DAMIAN & JOSE R. DAMIAN; HEIRS OF HORTENCIA RUSTIA CRUZ, namely: TERESITA CRUZ-SISON, HORACIO R. CRUZ, JOSEFINA CRUZ-RODIL, AMELIA CRUZ-ENRIQUEZ and FIDEL R. CRUZ, JR.; HEIRS OF ROMAN RUSTIA, namely: JOSEFINA RUSTIA-ALBANO, VIRGINIA RUSTIA-PARAISO, ROMAN RUSTIA, JR., SERGIO RUSTIA, FRANCISCO RUSTIA, LETICIA RUSTIA-MIRANDA; GUILLERMINA R. RUSTIA and GUILLERMA RUSTIA-ALARAS, respondents.

FACTS

On May 8, 1975, Luisa Delgado Vda. de Danao filed a Petition for Letters of Administration for the intestate estate of the deceased spouses Josefa Delgado and Dr. Guillermo Rustia, docketed as SP Case No. 97668. The petition was opposed by relatives of Dr. Guillermo Rustia. Guillerma S. Rustia (Alaras) intervened, claiming to be the acknowledged natural child and sole heir of Dr. Guillermo Rustia. After proceedings on issues including the marital status of the deceased and the filiation of the intervenor, the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 55, rendered a decision on May 11, 1990. The court declared the petitioner and her co-claimants as the legal heirs of Josefa Delgado, declared intervenor Guillerma S. Rustia as the sole heir of Dr. Guillermo Rustia, set aside an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, and appointed petitioner Carlota Delgado Vda. de Dela Rosa as administratrix of the estates. The private respondents (oppositors) filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 1990, and filed their Record on Appeal on June 21, 1990, which was 31 days from their counsel’s receipt of the decision. The trial court, per Judge Hermogenes R. Liwag, denied due course and dismissed the appeal on September 25, 1990, ruling the Record on Appeal was filed a day late. The private respondents assailed this order via a petition for certiorari and mandamus. The Supreme Court referred the petition to the Court of Appeals, which initially denied it but, upon motion for reconsideration, reversed itself in a Resolution dated November 27, 1991. The appellate court granted the petition, annulled the trial court’s order, and approved the Record on Appeal to give due course to the appeal, citing special circumstances and the interest of substantial justice. Petitioner Carlota Delgado Vda. de Dela Rosa filed this petition for review, insisting the trial court’s decision had become final and executory.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in granting the petition for certiorari and mandamus, approving the private respondents’ Record on Appeal, and giving due course to their appeal despite the Record on Appeal being filed one day beyond the reglementary period.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated November 27, 1991. The Court held that while the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is generally mandatory and jurisdictional, the appellate court did not commit reversible error. The Court found that the appeal raised important and substantive issues regarding the declaration of heirship and the validity of an acknowledgment of filiation, which involve the application of the Family Code and affect substantial rights over the estate. In view of the special circumstances and the interest of substantial justice, the Court upheld the appellate court’s discretion to relax procedural rules to allow a review of the trial court’s decision on its merits. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure should not be applied rigidly to deny a party the opportunity to appeal, especially when the appeal appears meritorious on its face.