G.R. No. 164255 ; September 7, 2011
SPOUSES ELBE LEBIN and ERLINDA LEBIN, Petitioners, vs. VILMA S. MIRASOL, and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO, BRANCH XXVII, Respondents.

FACTS

In Special Proceedings No. 1307 for the settlement of the estate of L.J. Hodges, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 27, issued an order on May 3, 1995, ruling that Lot 18, a property of the estate which petitioners Spouses Lebin had offered to purchase, be divided into two equal portions between the petitioners and respondent Vilma S. Mirasol. The petitioners had made an offer to purchase the lot in 1985, which was approved by the RTC on August 28, 1985. Respondent Mirasol, whose house was later found to be standing on the same lot, filed a petition for relief from that order. On March 2, 1998, the RTC denied the petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of the May 3, 1995 order. The petitioners filed a notice of appeal on March 27, 1998. They allegedly filed a record on appeal on May 5, 1998, and presented an ex parte motion to approve it on January 25, 1999. On June 15, 2000, Mirasol moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground of tardiness of the record on appeal. The RTC granted the motion to dismiss on February 1, 2002. The petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on May 21, 2004. The petitioners then directly appealed to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari filed on June 23, 2004, assailing the dismissal orders.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not the RTC erred in dismissing the petitioners’ appeal for their failure to timely file a record on appeal.
2. Whether or not the RTC committed reversible error in adjudging that Lot 18 be sold to both the petitioners and Mirasol in equal portions.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review for lack of merit.
1. The RTC did not err in dismissing the appeal for failure to timely file a record on appeal. The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is mandatory and jurisdictional. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 and the Rules of Court, a record on appeal is required for appeals in special proceedings, and the period for filing such an appeal is 30 days from notice of the judgment or order. The Court found that the petitioners failed to perfect their appeal within the reglementary period. Their notice of appeal was filed on March 27, 1998, but the record on appeal was not filed until May 5, 1998, which was beyond the 30-day period from their receipt of the March 2, 1998 order denying their motion for reconsideration. The filing and approval of a record on appeal are essential to confer jurisdiction upon the appellate court in special proceedings. The petitioners’ failure to do so timely rendered the RTC’s order of dismissal final and executory.
2. The Court did not reach the substantive issue regarding the division of Lot 18. Since the dismissal of the appeal for failure to perfect it on time was proper, the May 3, 1995 order of the RTC had become final and immutable. The Court emphasized that it is not its function to review alleged errors in a decision that has already attained finality. The petitioners’ remedy was a timely appeal, which they lost due to their own negligence.