G.R. No. L-27465 August 31, 1971
Serafin Borres Loyola and Jose Diaz Deslate, petitioners, vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals (Third Division), Nelly Borres Loyola, and Gamby Borres Loyola, assisted by her Guardian Ad-Litem Julieta B. Declaro, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents filed an action for recovery of possession and annulment of contract in 1950. The trial court rendered a decision against petitioners on June 2, 1964. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on July 15, 1964, but this motion did not state the date of their receipt of the decision. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration in an order dated August 12, 1964. Petitioners filed their notice of appeal on August 20, 1964, without indicating the date they received the August 12 order. The trial court approved the record on appeal on September 16, 1964.
Subsequently, in March 1966, private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was perfected out of time. They contended that petitioners received the original decision on June 16, 1964, making their July 15 motion for reconsideration timely. However, they asserted that petitioners received the order denying reconsideration on August 14, 1964. Thus, the period to appeal expired on August 29, 1964, but petitioners filed their notice of appeal only on August 20, 1964, and their record on appeal was submitted later. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioners’ appeal for having been perfected out of time.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Petitioners failed to prove they complied with this requirement. While their notice of appeal was filed on August 20, 1964, which was within the 30-day period from the August 12 order, the record on appeal—a mandatory component for perfecting an appeal under the then-governing Rules—was not submitted until August 21, 1964, after the period had allegedly expired. Critically, petitioners bore the burden of affirmatively showing in their record on appeal that the appeal was timely perfected. Their record on appeal did not contain the dates of receipt of the June 2 decision or the August 12 order, which were essential for the appellate court to determine timeliness. This fatal omission justified dismissal.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court emphasized the policy against undue delay in litigation. The case had been pending since 1950, and the petitioners’ failure to prosecute their appeal with diligence, coupled with their procedural lapses, caused further prejudice to the respondents who had been deprived of their property for decades. The Court held that appellants cannot justify non-compliance with procedural rules by blaming court personnel and that failure to prosecute an appeal diligently will not be countenanced.