G.R. No. L-20011 December 17, 1966
HEIRS OF PEDRO CABALAG, ETC., ET AL., petitioners, vs. ROXAS Y CIA., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, heirs of former tenant Pedro Cabalag, filed an action in the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR Case No. 399) against the owners, administrator, overseer, and incumbent tenant of Hacienda Palico to be recognized as farm tenants of Lot 105-A. The CAR dismissed their claim on May 3, 1962. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which was denied on June 4, 1962. On June 8, 1962, petitioners filed with the Supreme Court a petition for leave to appeal as pauper and for an extension to file a petition for review, which was granted. On July 10, 1962, petitioners filed the petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, including the Court of Agrarian Relations as a respondent, but they did not file a notice of appeal with the CAR itself. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that no notice of appeal was filed with the CAR.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioners perfected their appeal, considering their failure to file a notice of appeal with the respondent Court of Agrarian Relations.

RULING

No, petitioners did not perfect their appeal. The Supreme Court ruled that under the applicable rules (Rule 44 of the Rules of Court, made applicable to appeals from the Court of Agrarian Relations), an appeal by certiorari must be perfected by filing both a notice of appeal with the Court of Agrarian Relations and a petition with the Supreme Court within the reglementary period. The petitioners’ failure to file the requisite notice of appeal with the CAR is a fatal jurisdictional error, rendering the CAR’s decision final and executory and precluding the Supreme Court from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. The petition for review was therefore dismissed.