G.R. No. L-37522 November 28, 1975
FRANCISCO G. RODRIGUEZ or his heirs, ANITA RODRIGUEZ DE LA RAMA, CAROLINA RODRIGUEZ LACSON, and MARIA VICTORIA RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ, and SEVERINO OGATIS, ET AL., or their heirs, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, and FLORA POSITOS and VICENTE BONETE, JULIANA BONETE, joined by her husband PRESCRITO SOBERANO, and FELICIDAD BONETE, joined by her husband FEDERICO ORTIZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were defendants in a quiet title action before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, which ruled in favor of private respondents. After their motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioners filed their notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal. Private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal, contending it was filed beyond the reglementary period. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal on November 4, 1969. Petitioners then filed a mandamus petition with the Court of Appeals, which, in a final and executory decision dated December 17, 1970, nullified the trial court’s dismissal order. The appellate court held the appeal was perfected on time and remanded the case, directing the trial judge to rule on objections to the record on appeal and to grant petitioners a reasonable time to amend it if necessary.
Pursuant to the final CA decision, the trial court, on January 12, 1972, ordered petitioners to submit an amended record on appeal within fifteen days, specifying certain pleadings to be incorporated. Petitioners complied, and the trial court found the amended record on appeal “in order and in accordance with law.” However, upon elevation, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in a resolution dated March 26, 1973. It held that the amended record on appeal failed to show on its face that the appeal was perfected on time because it omitted the date petitioners received the trial court’s order directing the amendment.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal based on the amended record on appeal’s failure to state the date of receipt of the order to amend.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on the doctrine that the timeliness of an appeal is determined by the filing of the original record on appeal, not the amended one. The Court cited Vda. de Oyzon v. Vinzon, which established that an amended record on appeal is deemed filed as of the date of the presentation of the original, provided the original was filed within the reglementary period. Here, the final and executory 1970 CA decision had already conclusively determined that the original notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal were filed on time. This finding was binding and rendered superfluous any subsequent inquiry by the appellate court into the timeliness based on the amended record.
Furthermore, the trial court’s approval of the amended record on appeal, stating it was “in order and in accordance with law,” carried a presumption of regularity. As held in Berkenkotter v. Court of Appeals, a judge would not approve a record on appeal not timely filed. The amendment was a mere compliance with a procedural directive to incorporate omitted pleadings, and petitioners filed it within the 15-day period granted by the trial court. The Supreme Court emphasized the policy to afford litigants the amplest opportunity for a just determination of their cause, freed from technicalities. Thus, the CA resolutions were set aside, and the case was remanded for decision on the merits.