G.R. No. 138731; December 11, 2000
Testate Estate of Maria Manuel Vda. De Biascan, petitioner, vs. Rosalina C. Biascan, respondent.

FACTS

This case originated from a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of Florencio Biascan and Timotea Zulueta. Respondent Rosalina Biascan was appointed administratrix in 1975. Maria Manuel Vda. de Biascan, the legal wife of Florencio, intervened, contesting the appointment and asserting her rights as an heir. The trial court issued an Order on April 2, 1981, which, among other things, recognized Maria as the lawful wife and the respondent as an acknowledged natural child, both entitled to participate in the proceedings, but denied Maria’s motion to set aside the respondent’s appointment as administratrix. Maria received a copy of this order on April 9, 1981. She filed a motion for reconsideration 58 days later, on June 6, 1981. Due to a fire that destroyed the court records and subsequent reconstitution proceedings, the trial court denied this motion for reconsideration only on April 30, 1985.
Maria later died, and her estate (the petitioner) discovered the April 30, 1985 Order in August 1996, finding no proof of its service to Maria’s former counsel. The petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal from the 1981 and 1985 Orders. While the notice was dated April 22, 1996, the trial court’s stamp showed it was received on September 20, 1996. The trial court denied the appeal as filed out of time, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s appeal for being filed out of time.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision. The appeal was correctly dismissed for untimeliness. The pivotal legal logic rests on the finality of the April 2, 1981 Order. Under the then-applicable Rules of Court, a motion for reconsideration of an appealable order in a special proceeding must be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the order. Maria received the April 2, 1981 Order on April 9, 1981. Her motion for reconsideration filed on June 6, 1981, was 58 days later, clearly beyond the reglementary period. Consequently, the April 2, 1981 Order became final and executory upon the lapse of the 30-day appeal period, and the belated motion for reconsideration did not toll this period.
Furthermore, the appeal from the April 30, 1985 Order (denying the motion for reconsideration) was also filed out of time. The rules required an appeal via a notice of appeal and record on appeal to be filed within thirty (30) days from notice of the order denying the motion for reconsideration. Even assuming the petitioner learned of the 1985 Order only in August 1996, the Notice of Appeal was received by the trial court only on September 20, 1996. This was beyond any reasonable period and no motion for extension was filed. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is statutory, and perfection within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to comply renders the questioned order final and unappealable. The alleged lack of notice of the 1985 Order does not alter this conclusion, as the 1981 Order had long become final due to the late filing of the motion for reconsideration.