G.R. No. L-20265; June 30, 1964
SIMEONA CUMPLIDO, petitioner, vs. PRESENTACION MENDOZA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

In a quieting of title case, the Court of First Instance of Bulacan initially rendered judgment in favor of defendant Simeona Cumplido. Plaintiff Presentacion Mendoza filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration. On April 27, 1962, the trial court granted the motion and issued an amended decision, reversing its original ruling and awarding one-half of the property to Mendoza. Cumplido received a copy of this amended order on April 28, 1962.
On May 23, 1962, within the 30-day reglementary period, Cumplido filed a notice of appeal and deposited a cash appeal bond. On May 26, 1962, three days before the period to file the record on appeal expired, her counsel filed a motion for a 15-day extension to submit it. No judge was then presiding in the CFI of Bulacan, so the motion remained unacted upon. Cumplido filed her record on appeal on June 13, 1962. Respondent Mendoza opposed its approval, arguing the appeal was not perfected on time because the cash bond was not served on her and the record on appeal was filed late.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner Simeona Cumplido perfected her appeal within the reglementary period.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus, ruling that the appeal was not perfected on time. The Court clarified that the non-service of the cash appeal bond on the adverse party does not affect the perfection of an appeal, provided the bond itself is filed within the period. Thus, that ground for opposition was without merit.
However, the Court held that the record on appeal was filed out of time. The reglementary period to file it expired on May 28, 1962. Cumplido’s motion for a 15-day extension, filed on May 26, was not granted due to the absence of a presiding judge. The Court emphasized that a litigant cannot assume a motion for extension will be granted; Cumplido’s counsel had a duty to follow up and, upon learning no judge was available, could have presented the motion to the justice of the peace of the capital, as authorized by law, to secure action. By failing to do so, counsel took an unjustified risk.
Even assuming the requested extension was granted, the filing was still late. Counting 15 days from May 29, the extended period would have ended on June 12, 1962. Cumplido admitted filing the record on appeal on June 13, which was one day beyond even the hypothetical extended deadline. Since the petitioner failed to establish a clear legal right to the approval of the record on appeal, she was not entitled to the writ of mandamus. The trial court’s order dismissing the appeal and issuing execution was upheld.