G.R. No. L-14684-86; August 26, 1960
CATALINO CAISIP, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HON. JUDGE DOMINGO M. CABANGON, of the Court of Agrarian Relations, and JESUS T. PINEDA, respondents.

FACTS

In three consolidated cases before the Court of Agrarian Relations, respondent Jesus T. Pineda sought the ejectment of 27 tenants from his riceland. The Agrarian Court ordered the ejectment of 24 of these tenants. The 24 ejected tenants appealed to the Supreme Court via certiorari under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 1267. The private respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petitioners failed to perfect their appeal as required by law, rendering the Agrarian Court’s judgment final and executory. The records show the petitioners received the decision on July 16, 1958, giving them 15 days to appeal. On July 30, 1958, they filed a motion to extend the period to file a motion for reconsideration, which was granted. They filed their motion for reconsideration on August 6, 1958. This motion was denied on October 7, 1958, and notice of the denial was received on October 23, 1958. On that same day, they filed a notice of appeal but withdrew it on October 26, 1958, having mailed a second motion for reconsideration and a petition for relief from judgment on October 25. The court approved the withdrawal and later denied the second motion. The petitioners filed the present petition for review with the Supreme Court on November 6, 1958.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petitioners’ appeal.

RULING

No, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. The appeal was not perfected in the manner and within the period prescribed by law. Perfection of an appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. The petitioners failed on two counts: (1) they did not file the necessary notice of appeal with the Agrarian Court after withdrawing their first notice, and (2) they filed the petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court beyond the 15-day statutory period from notice of the decision (which expired on October 24, 1958, while the petition was filed on November 6, 1958). This failure rendered the Agrarian Court’s decision final and executory. The petition cannot be treated as a valid special civil action for certiorari either, as it raises no question of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by the lower court, and the remedy of appeal, which was available, precludes certiorari. However, with respect to petitioner Pedro Magtoto, who died during the pendency of the case in the lower court, the Supreme Court ordered the Agrarian Court to comply with the rules on substitution of parties before any valid judgment could be taken against him. The petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, with costs against all petitioners except Pedro Magtoto.