G.R. No. 186053 ; November 15, 2010
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Nisaida Sumera Nishina, represented by Zenaida Sumera Watanabe, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Nisaida Sumera Nishina filed a verified petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, for the cancellation of a birth record and change of surname. She was born to a Filipino mother and a Japanese father. After her father’s death, her mother remarried, and respondent’s birth was late-registered in 1993 under her stepfather’s surname, “Hakamada.” Following her mother’s subsequent marriage to Takayuki Watanabe, who adopted respondent under a Japanese decree, it was discovered that her original 1987 birth record under the surname “Nishina” existed. The petition sought to cancel the 1993 record and change her surname on the original record to “Watanabe” due to the adoption. The RTC granted the petition.
The Republic, through the OSG, filed a notice of appeal. Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal before the Court of Appeals, arguing that the petitioner adopted the wrong mode of appeal. She contended that since the case was a special proceeding, Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court required both a notice of appeal and a record on appeal. The petitioner countered that a record on appeal was only necessary in special proceedings where multiple appeals are possible, which was not the case here. The CA dismissed the appeal, ruling that the failure to file a record on appeal meant the appeal was not perfected.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal for failure to file a record on appeal in a special proceeding where no multiple appeals are possible.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the appeal. The legal logic hinges on the proper interpretation of Section 2(a), Rule 41, and Section 1, Rule 109 of the Rules of Court. While Section 2(a) states that a record on appeal is required “in special proceedings,” this requirement is contextual. The Court clarified that the necessity for a record on appeal under this rule is tied to the nature of special proceedings where multiple or separate appeals may arise from various interlocutory orders, as enumerated in Section 1 of Rule 109 (e.g., orders on wills, determination of heirs, settlement of accounts).
In this specific case, the RTC’s order was a final judgment that disposed of the entire petition for cancellation and change of surname. No further proceedings were pending, and no separate issues remained for adjudication. Consequently, the situation did not involve the potential for multiple appeals that would necessitate leaving the original records with the trial court. Therefore, the ordinary rule for appeals from final judgments—requiring only a notice of appeal—should apply. The petitioner’s filing of a notice of appeal within the reglementary period was sufficient to perfect the appeal. The CA’s strict application was erroneous, as it failed to consider that the record on appeal requirement is not absolute but is intended for cases where the proceedings continue despite an appeal on an interlocutory matter.