G.R. No. L-12133; November 12, 1918
JUAN LAYDA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. HIGINO LEGAZPI, ET AL., defendants-appellees.

FACTS:
The plaintiffs-appellants commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan on January 21, 1915, to recover ownership of a parcel of land and damages. The lower court rendered its decision on September 20, 1915. The appellants filed a motion for a new trial on October 11, 1915, which was denied on October 15, 1915. They gave notice of their intention to present a bill of exceptions on October 22, 1915. Subsequently, they filed a motion for an extension of time to present the bill of exceptions on November 20, 1915, which was granted. The bill of exceptions was finally presented on December 2, 1915, certified by the judge on December 11, 1915, and received by the Supreme Court on April 6, 1916.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Supreme Court acquired jurisdiction over the appeal, considering the timeliness of the perfection of the appeal and the presentation of the bill of exceptions.

RULING:
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the judgment of the lower court had become final before the appeal was perfected. The right to appeal is statutory, and appellate jurisdiction is not conferred by the parties’ consent.

The Court took the opportunity to clarify and establish definitive periods for perfecting appeals to end uncertainty. It ruled that in ordinary civil actions under Act No. 190 (Code of Civil Procedure):
1. Notice of intention to present a bill of exceptions must be given within five (5) days from receipt of notice of the judgment, if no motion for new trial is filed.
2. If a motion for new trial is filed and denied, the notice of intention must be given within five (5) days from receipt of notice of the order of denial.
3. The bill of exceptions itself must then be presented within ten (10) days from the giving of said notice of intention, or within an extended period granted by the court before the expiration of the original period.

Applying these rules to the case, the Court found that the appellants gave notice of intention on October 22, 1915. However, they did not file their motion for an extension to present the bill of exceptions until November 20, 191529 days later, which was well beyond the 10-day period for filing the bill of exceptions after notice of intention. Since the motion for extension was filed after the original period had expired, the court could no longer grant it. Consequently, the failure to perfect the appeal on time was jurisdictional, and the lower court’s decision had become final and executory. The Supreme Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to review the merits of the case.

The Court also noted additional grounds for dismissal, including the late forwarding of the bill of exceptions and the non-compliance with deposit requirements for fees and printing costs.