G.R. No. 70929, June 4, 1990
FILIPINA G. PAMINTUAN, RAMON GORROMEO, SANCHO GORROMEO and POTENCIANA GORROMEO, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, HON. ESTER N. BANS, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch LXXII, City of Olongapo, Sheriff ATILLANO G. MANQUIL, JUANITO RODOLFO, ABUNDIO RODOLFO, JAIME RODOLFO, and FLORA M. DE GUZMAN, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, heirs of Mariano Gorromeo, filed a case for recovery of ownership and possession with damages against private respondents, the Rodolfos. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners in a decision dated December 8, 1982. The Rodolfos filed a notice of appeal, but the trial court initially dismissed it for being filed beyond the reglementary period, as they received the decision on January 12, 1983, and filed their notice on February 1, 1983. However, upon motion for reconsideration, the trial court reinstated the appeal on July 29, 1983, finding that the decision was improperly served directly upon the Rodolfos instead of their counsel, as required by the rules. Consequently, the trial court ordered the restoration of the status quo prior to a writ of execution issued on May 12, 1983, which had placed petitioners in possession.
Subsequently, on March 5, 1984, petitioners filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s orders dated July 29, 1983, and February 28, 1984 (which denied their motion for reconsideration). Believing their appeal was perfected, petitioners argued the trial court lost jurisdiction. Nevertheless, on July 19, 1984, acting on a motion filed by the Rodolfos on March 13, 1984, the trial court issued an order directing the sheriff to restore possession of the land to the Rodolfos. Petitioners challenged this order, contending the trial court acted without jurisdiction.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction to issue the order of July 19, 1984, restoring possession to the Rodolfos, despite petitioners having filed a notice of appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the trial court’s jurisdiction. The legal logic centers on the rule governing the perfection of appeal. Under Section 23 of the Interim Rules, in cases where a record on appeal is required, an appeal is perfected only upon the court’s approval of the record on appeal. More fundamentally, the perfection of appeal occurs upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party. The mere filing of a notice of appeal by one party does not instantly perfect the appeal or divest the trial court of jurisdiction; the court retains jurisdiction as long as the reglementary period for any party to appeal has not fully lapsed.
Applying this, the Court noted that the Rodolfos received the order of February 28, 1984, on March 13, 1984, and filed their motion for restoration of possession on that same date—which was still within their period to appeal had they chosen to do so. Concurrently, the petitioners’ own period to appeal from the denial of their motion for reconsideration also extended until March 13, 1984. Therefore, when the Rodolfos filed their motion on March 13, 1984, the appeal was not yet perfected for any party, and the trial court validly retained jurisdiction to issue the subsequent July 19, 1984, order. Furthermore, the earlier writ of execution dated May 12, 1983