G.R. No. 31842 , February 25, 1930
MARCELO GAJITON and FAUSTA FABIO, petitioners-appellees, vs. RAYMUNDO MERIS Y MORALES, Justice of the Peace of Manaoag, Pangasinan, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioners Marcelo Gajiton and Fausta Fabio were defendants in Civil Case No. 887 before the justice of the peace court of Manaoag. On April 2, 1928, after their demurrer was overruled, they waived their right to answer and informed the court that a judgment by default could be rendered against them, but they would appeal. The justice of the peace rendered a default judgment and entered it in the docket on the same day. On April 12, 1928, the petitioners inquired about the judgment, and on April 23, 1928, they filed their appeal papers. The justice of the peace refused to admit the appeal, arguing that the 15-day period to appeal had lapsed. The petitioners then filed a mandamus action in the Court of First Instance (CFI) to compel the justice of the peace to notify them of the judgment and to admit their appeal. The CFI granted the petition, ordering the respondent to notify the petitioners, admit the appeal, and stay execution. The justice of the peace appealed the CFI’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners perfected their appeal from the judgment of the justice of the peace within the period prescribed by law.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the CFI’s decision and dismissed the complaint.
Under Sections 72 and 76 of Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure), an appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace must be perfected within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of the judgment, not from the date of notification. The judgment in Civil Case No. 887 was entered on April 2, 1928, but the petitioners filed their appeal papers only on April 23, 192821 days later, beyond the reglementary period. The Court cited Agcaoili v. Rivera ( G.R. No. 26768 , March 25, 1927) and Policarpio v. Borja (16 Phil. 31), which held that the 15-day period is counted from the entry of judgment and that a mere notice of intent to appeal is insufficient if the appeal papers are not filed within the period. Thus, the judgment had become final and unappealable, and the respondent justice of the peace correctly refused to admit the appeal. Costs were imposed on the petitioners-appellees.