GR 170172; (November, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 170172 ; November 23, 2007
ARLYN PINEDA, Petitioner, vs. JULIE C. ARCALAS, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Julie Arcalas obtained a favorable judgment for a sum of money against Victoria Tolentino from the Quezon City RTC. To execute the judgment, the court levied on three parcels of land registered under Tolentino’s name. Prior to this levy, petitioner Arlyn Pineda had purchased the same property from Tolentino but failed to register the deed of sale. Pineda filed a third-party claim against the levy, but the Quezon City RTC quashed it, ruling the registered levy was superior to her unregistered sale. This order became final.
Subsequently, Pineda filed an affidavit of adverse claim on the title. Arcalas, who later purchased the property at the execution sale, filed a petition with the Laguna RTC for the cancellation of this adverse claim. The Laguna RTC granted the petition, ordering the cancellation on the ground of res judicata, as the Quezon City RTC’s order quashing the third-party claim had already become final. Pineda appealed to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Pineda’s appeal for failure to file the required appellant’s brief.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal based on a procedural lapse, not the substantive property issues Pineda raised. Under Section 7, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, an appellant in an ordinary appealed case has the mandatory duty to file an appellant’s brief within forty-five days from notice. Pineda’s appeal from the Laguna RTC’s order was an ordinary appeal under Rule 41, not a special civil action, thus requiring a brief. Her failure to file this brief constituted an abandonment of her appeal, warranting its dismissal. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege that must be exercised in accordance with the law. Pineda’s counsel’s admission of having overlooked the filing period did not excuse the non-compliance. Consequently, the Laguna RTC’s order cancelling the adverse claim, grounded on the final and executory prior order from the Quezon City RTC, was sustained. The resolution of the procedural default rendered a discussion on the merits of her claims regarding the levy and possession unnecessary.