G.R. No. L-58651; July 30, 1987
Virginia Tonio Velasco, et al., petitioners, vs. Hon. Judge Graciano P. Gayapa, Jr., et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, descendants of Juan Tonio, filed an action to quiet title over an unregistered parcel of land in Viga, Catanduanes. They claimed ownership by intestate succession from Juan, who died in 1936. Private respondents Eduardo Ogena and his wife purchased the land from Juliana Vda. de Tonio (Juan’s widow) in 1965, evidenced by a private document witnessed by petitioner Salvacion T. Lizaso. The Ogenas built a rice mill on the property and later sold it, along with improvements, to spouses Jose and Rosita Alberto in 1972, who took possession and operated the mill.
After trial, the lower court dismissed petitioners’ complaint on June 18, 1981. Petitioners received a copy of the decision on the same date. On July 10, 1981, their counsel filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Perfect Appeal, seeking a 15-day extension from July 18, 1981. The court, in an order issued in open court on July 17, 1981, directed petitioners to file their notice of appeal and appeal bond within the reglementary period, which expired on July 18, 1981, but granted a 15-day extension from July 18 only to file the record on appeal. The court later dismissed the appeal on August 7, 1981, finding the notice of appeal and appeal bond were filed out of time on July 20, 1981. Petitioners contested this, claiming they filed these items on July 17, 1981, with a court stitcher from a different branch.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioners’ appeal for being filed out of time.

RULING

No, the respondent court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. While the Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that appeals are essential and rules of procedure should not be rigidly applied to override substantial justice, such liberal treatment is not warranted in this case. The Court examined the merits of the underlying case and found the dismissal of the appeal proper because the main action for quieting of title is manifestly without merit.
The record shows petitioners’ claim is barred by prescription, and they presented no evidence of ownership or possession of the land in the concept of owner since they left for Mindanao in 1939. In contrast, private respondents established a clear chain of acquisition and possession, beginning with the purchase from Juliana Vda. de Tonio. Since a remand would only result in needless delays to achieve the same outcome, the order dismissing the appeal must be upheld. The petition is dismissed.