G.R. No. L-23736 October 19, 1965
Government of the Philippines (The Director of Lands), applicant-appellee, vs. Luis Antonio, et al., claimants-petitioners-appellants, Esperidion Tolentino, et al., claimants-oppositors-appellants, Roman Dallo, Pedro Delizo, et al., claimants-interdictos-appellants.

FACTS

The appellee, the Government of the Philippines (through the Director of Lands), moved to dismiss the appeals interposed by three sets of appellants: Luis Antonio, et al.; Esperidion Tolentino, et al.; and Roman Dallo, Pedro Delizo, et al. The ground for dismissal was that the records on appeal filed by the appellants failed to show on their face that the appeals were perfected within the period fixed by the Revised Rules of Court. An examination of the records on appeal revealed the following deficiencies: they did not state the date when the appellants received notice of the appealed order dated March 25, 1963, which dismissed their petition; they did not show the date when the appellants received notice of the order dated July 5, 1963, denying their motions for reconsideration; and they lacked data to determine if the notices of appeal, appeal bonds, and records on appeal were filed within the reglementary period. The records merely indicated the filing of motions for reconsideration over one and a half months after the order of dismissal and contained conclusions (e.g., appeal filed “within the reglementary period”) rather than factual data.

ISSUE

Whether the appeals should be dismissed for failure of the records on appeal to show on their face that the appeals were perfected within the period fixed by the rules, as required under Rule 41, Section 6, in connection with Rule 50, Section 1(a), and Rule 56, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Court.

RULING

Yes, the appeals are dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the requirement under Rule 41, Section 6 for the record on appeal to include “such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time” is mandatory and jurisdictional. The perfection of an appeal within the prescribed period is a jurisdictional requisite, and failure to comply results in the appellate court acquiring no jurisdiction over the appealed case, warranting dismissal. The deficiencies in the appellants’ records on appeal were fatal, as they made it impossible to determine the timeliness of the appeals. The Court explicitly abandoned and overruled the contrary doctrine in Santiago, et al. vs. Valenzuela, et al., which had held that a motion to dismiss an appeal for being out of time must be denied if filed after the appellant’s brief had been submitted. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the timeliness of an appeal is jurisdictional and can be raised at any stage, even after the filing of briefs, as established in subsequent cases like Miranda vs. Guanzon and Valdez vs. Acumen.