GR L 40729; (January, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. L-40729-30, January 31, 1987
ERNARDO C. CARBONEL, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, FRANCISCA VDA. DE CARREON and HEIRS OF SALUSTIANO CARREON, represented by FRANCISCA VDA. DE CARREON and SOCORRO C. VDA. DE AGATEP, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Bernardo Carbonel filed a land registration case over Lot No. 207. The private respondents, the Carreon family and Socorro Agatep, opposed, claiming ownership over the eastern and western halves, respectively. Simultaneously, the Carreons filed an ejectment case against Carbonel, alleging he was their lessee who refused to vacate and pay increased rent after 1964. Carbonel denied any landlord-tenant relationship, claiming he bought the lot from a predecessor.
The trial court ruled against Carbonel in both cases, ordering him to vacate, remove his improvements, and declaring the respondents as owners. Both Carbonel and the Carreons appealed to the Court of Appeals. However, the Carreons’ appeal in the ejectment case was dismissed for their failure to file an appeal bond. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decisions but modified the ejectment judgment by ordering Carbonel to pay monthly rentals of P20.00 from September 1964 until he vacates.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying the trial court’s judgment in the ejectment case by awarding accrued rentals, despite the dismissal of the Carreons’ own appeal for failure to perfect it.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error. The perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. Since the Carreons’ appeal was dismissed for failure to file the requisite appeal bond, the trial court’s judgment in the ejectment case became final and executory as to them. Consequently, the appellate court was deprived of any jurisdiction to alter or modify that final judgment.
The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that, as plaintiffs-appellees, they could still assign errors to seek a modification. Citing Bunge Corp. v. Camenforte, an appellee who is not an appellant may assign errors only to maintain the judgment on other grounds, not to modify or reverse it. To seek an affirmative modification of a judgment, a party must perfect an appeal. The Carreons, having failed to do so, could not legally obtain the appellate court’s award of accrued rentals, which constituted a substantive modification of the final trial court decision. Therefore, the Supreme Court deleted the modification and reinstated the trial court’s decision in toto.