G.R. No. L-32682 February 29, 1972
FORTUNATO TUASON, petitioner-appellant, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, JUDGE FERNANDO A. CRUZ, LEONOR LIMAS and REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL (now Caloocan City), respondents-appellees.

FACTS

This case originated from a complaint for recovery of possession filed by Fortunato Tuason against Leonor Limas. The trial court dismissed Tuason’s complaint and ordered him to vacate the premises. Tuason received notice of the decision on August 7, 1969, giving him until September 6, 1969, to perfect an appeal. He filed a notice of appeal and bond on August 18. The court granted his first motion for a 20-day extension to file a record on appeal. He then filed a second motion for a 10-day extension, which the court also granted, setting a new deadline of October 6, 1969.
On October 7, 1969, Tuason filed a third motion for extension. Limas moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing the judgment had become final because the third motion was filed one day late. The trial court initially granted the third motion on October 8 but later, on November 19, reconsidered and dismissed the appeal, holding it lost jurisdiction as the extension period had already expired. The Court of Appeals denied Tuason’s petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed Tuason’s appeal for being filed out of time, thereby rendering its judgment final and executory.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The core legal principle is that an application for extension of time to perfect an appeal must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended. Tuason’s second extension expired on October 6, 1969. His third motion for extension was filed on October 7, which was one day late. Consequently, upon the lapse of the period on October 6, the trial court’s judgment became final and executory, and the court lost all jurisdiction over the case. The loss of jurisdiction meant the court’s order of October 8 granting the late third motion was null and void. It was therefore correct for the trial court to later reconsider and set aside that void order.
The Court rejected Tuason’s excuses. His claim of heavy traffic causing a delay of only a few minutes on October 6 did not constitute a valid accident or excusable negligence warranting relief, as he could have filed the motion by registered mail that same day. Furthermore, his argument that the filing period was suspended by Limas’s various motions was untenable. A motion to dismiss an appeal based on late filing does not suspend the running of the period for perfection; what has already expired cannot be revived. The Court also noted that these specific arguments were not even raised before the trial court, making his certiorari petition to the Court of Appeals indefensible. The decision underscores the mandatory and jurisdictional nature of appeal periods.