G.R. No. 205451 , March 07, 2022
ELIZABETH BRUAL, PETITIONER, VS. JORGE BRUAL CONTRERAS, LOURDES BRUAL-NAZARIO, ERLINDA BRUAL-BINAY, RODOLFO BRUAL, RENATO BRUAL, VIOLETA BRUAL, DAVID DE JESUS AND ANTONIO DE JESUS, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Fausta Brual died single and without compulsory heirs. Petitioner Elizabeth Brual, Fausta’s niece by affinity and caregiver, filed a petition for probate of Fausta’s last will and testament, wherein Elizabeth and her husband were instituted as heirs and co-executors. Respondents, who are Fausta’s nephews and nieces, filed a motion for intervention in the probate proceedings, alleging the testamentary act was dubious and the petition was defective for not listing decedent’s blood relatives. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion for intervention, ruling Fausta could dispose of her entire estate and the respondents were not compulsory heirs entitled to notice. The RTC also denied respondents’ motion for reconsideration. Respondents then filed a notice of appeal. The RTC dismissed the appeal for respondents’ failure to simultaneously file a record on appeal as required by Rules of Court, Rule 41, and later denied their omnibus motion for reconsideration and to admit a belatedly filed record on appeal. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the petition, reversing the RTC and reinstating the appeal, holding that appeals should not be dismissed on procedural technicalities and that respondents’ belief on the sequence of filing was an honest mistake. Elizabeth Brual filed the present petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s dismissal of respondents’ appeal for failure to perfect the appeal by not filing a record on appeal within the reglementary period.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the RTC’s orders dismissing the appeal. The Court ruled that the filing of a record on appeal is mandatory for appeals in special proceedings cases. Respondents filed only a notice of appeal on February 3, 2011. Their period to appeal expired on February 18, 2011. They filed their record on appeal only on June 6, 2011, which was beyond the reglementary period. Their failure to file it on time was not excusable negligence but a clear disregard of procedural rules. The Court emphasized that rules of procedure are not to be belittled or dismissed as mere technicalities, and perfection of an appeal within the statutory period is jurisdictional. Since respondents did not perfect their appeal on time, the RTC’s order denying intervention became final and executory. The CA therefore erred in giving due course to the petition for certiorari, as the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the unperfected appeal.