G.R. No. 127906 December 16, 1998
VIOLETA BATARA and ROY BATARA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, Sps. JULIAN and ROSARIO PUNONGBAYAN and Sps. GIL and ERLINDA OBSEQUIO, Respondents.

FACTS

Two consolidated cases originated from a Deed of Assignment executed by spouses Obsequio in favor of petitioner Violeta Batara over a parcel of land. The deed provided for installment payments and stipulated that failure to pay three monthly installments would grant the assignor the right to cancel the contract and treat all payments as rentals and liquidated damages. After making initial and irregular payments, petitioners ceased payments upon learning the property had been mortgaged by Obsequio to spouses Punongbayan, who later purchased it. Punongbayans filed for recovery of possession, while petitioners filed for quieting of title. The trial court ruled in favor of respondents, upholding the sale and awarding possession, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Petitioners received the trial court’s decision on November 6, 1995, and filed a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period. This motion was denied via an Order dated February 13, 1996, received by petitioners’ counsel on February 23, 1996. Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal on March 5, 1996. The trial court disapproved this notice for being filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period, counting 26 days from receipt of the denial order. The Court of Appeals affirmed this disapproval, ruling the appeal was late by seven days and that certiorari cannot substitute for a lost appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s disapproval of the Notice of Appeal for being filed out of time and in refusing to discuss the merits via a petition for certiorari.

RULING

The petition is without merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The timeliness of an appeal is a jurisdictional requirement; failure to comply renders the trial court’s judgment final and executory. The Court meticulously computed the period: the Order denying reconsideration was received on February 23, 1996. Petitioners had 15 days, or until March 9, 1996, to appeal. Filing on March 5 was therefore timely under this count. However, the trial court’s disapproval was based on its own computation from the date of the Order (February 13). The Supreme Court noted this discrepancy but ultimately found the appeal was not seasonably filed based on the records and the appellate court’s own finding of a seven-day delay. Petitioners’ invocation of exceptional circumstances to relax the rule was rejected. The cited jurisprudence (Siguenza, PNB) involved unique merits or shorter delays, unlike here where negligence was inexcusable. Furthermore, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot substitute for a lost appeal. The exceptions to this rule, as in Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, were absent. The trial court’s alleged misapprehension of facts constitutes an error of judgment, correctible by timely appeal, not a jurisdictional error correctible by certiorari. Thus, the final and executory judgment of the trial court stands.