G.R. No. L-15822; August 26, 1960
Megida Tintiangco, etc., et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Hon. Bernabe de Aquino, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Megida C. Tintiangco, for herself and as administratrix of absentees Buenaventura and Eufemia Tintiangco, was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 348, which sought partition of Lot 3633 and recovery of Lot 882 from defendants Uycocos. The lower court rendered judgment on April 8, 1957, ordering partition of Lot 3633 but declaring defendants Uycocos owners of Lot 882. Plaintiff Tintiangco received copy of the decision on April 17, 1957, while defendants Abayas (heirs of defendant Antonio Cruz) received theirs on April 18, 1957. On May 17, 1957, plaintiffs and defendants Abayas mailed a joint motion for reconsideration and new trial, received in court on May 18, 1957. This motion was denied by the court on July 9, 1958; plaintiff Tintiangco received copy of the denial on July 11, 1958, and defendants Abayas on July 14, 1958. On July 11, 1958, plaintiff Tintiangco and defendants Abayas allegedly mailed their joint notice of appeal, appeal bond, and a motion for extension to file their joint record on appeal; this mail was received in court on July 14, 1958. Their motions for extension to file the record on appeal were granted, and the complete record on appeal was submitted by registered mail on July 23, 1958. Defendants Uycocos opposed approval of the record on appeal, arguing the motion for reconsideration and the appeal were filed out of time. The lower court initially disapproved the record, then upon reconsideration re-examined the records and ultimately dismissed the appeal on the ground that “the appeal bond was filed a day too late.” Petitioners filed this petition for certiorari and mandamus to reverse the dismissal and have the appeal certified to the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioners’ joint motion for reconsideration and new trial was filed on time.
2. Assuming the motion was timely filed, whether petitioners’ appeal was perfected on time.

RULING

1. The joint motion for reconsideration and new trial was filed on time. Petitioner Tintiangco received her copy of the decision on April 17, 1957, and petitioners Abayas on April 18, 1957. Even considering the date of actual receipt in court (May 18, 1957) as the date of filing, it was the 30th day from April 17 and the 29th from April 18, thus within the reglementary period.
2. The appeal was not perfected on time for petitioner Megida C. Tintiangco but was perfected on time for petitioners Faustina Abaya Vda. de Cruz, et al. For petitioner Tintiangco, the thirty-day period to perfect the appeal expired on July 11, 1958 (she received notice of denial of the motion on July 11). The appeal bond found in the records is dated July 12, 1958, and petitioners’ claim that it substituted an earlier bond filed on July 11 is unsupported by evidence and contrary to established practice; no trace of an earlier bond exists, and its removal would require court authorization, which was not shown. The lower court correctly found the bond was filed a day late for Tintiangco. However, for petitioners Abayas, the appeal period expired on July 15, 1958 (they received notice of denial on July 14). The joint notice of appeal and appeal bond were received in court on July 14, 1958, and the complete record on appeal was filed on July 23, 1958, within the extended period granted by the court. Therefore, the appeal of petitioners Abayas was perfected on time.
The petition is dismissed as to petitioner Megida C. Tintiangco and granted as to petitioners Faustina Abaya Vda. de Cruz, et al. The appeal of petitioners Abaya, et al., is ordered given due course and certified to the Court of Appeals. Costs against petitioner Megida C. Tintiangco.