G.R. No. L-66242. August 31, 1984.
HEIRS OF CORNELIO LABRADA, represented by NATIVIDAD L. DIOCTON, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SINFORIANO A. MONSANTO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch XXVII, Catbalogan, Samar, and the HEIRS OF ISABEL YBOA, represented by Tito V. Tizon, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves conflicting claims over Lot No. 1910 of the Catbalogan Cadastral Survey between the heirs of Cornelio Labrada and the heirs of Isabel Yboa. The cadastral proceedings originated in 1932. After hearings, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision on July 11, 1983, adjudicating the lot in favor of the heirs of Yboa. Within two days from receipt of the adverse decision, the heirs of Labrada filed a notice of appeal on August 6, 1983, invoking the Interim Rules and Guidelines implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, which generally dispense with a record on appeal.
The heirs of Yboa moved for the issuance of a decree of registration, contending the appeal was not perfected because the heirs of Labrada failed to file a record on appeal. The respondent court granted the motion, holding that an appeal in a cadastral case involves “multiple appeals” under the exception in the Interim Rules, thus requiring a record on appeal. It consequently ordered the issuance of a decree. The heirs of Labrada’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.

ISSUE

Whether an appeal from a decision adjudicating a specific contested lot in cadastral proceedings requires the filing of a record on appeal, or whether it may be taken by a simple notice of appeal under the general rule of the Interim Rules.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal may be taken by a simple notice of appeal. The pertinent provisions are Sections 18 and 19 of the Interim Rules. The general rule under Section 18 eliminates the requirement for a record on appeal. Section 19(a) provides a 15-day appeal period for all appeals except those falling under Section 19(b), which requires a 30-day period and a record on appeal for “appeals in special proceedings in accordance with Rule 109 of the Rules of Court and other cases wherein multiple appeals are allowed.”
The Court held that the appeal concerning conflicting claims to a specific cadastral lot does not fall under the exception for “multiple appeals.” Cadastral proceedings involve contests over specific lots, and records can be readily segregated for each contested lot. Upon rendition of judgment for a specific lot, the original records pertaining to that lot alone can be elevated to the appellate court, leaving other records for uncontested or still-pending lots with the trial court. The objective of the new rule is to simplify and expedite appellate procedure by eliminating the tedious and expensive preparation of a record on appeal. Therefore, the petitioners’ filing of a notice of appeal within the 15-day period perfected their appeal. The respondent court’s orders denying due course to the appeal and directing the issuance of a decree were set aside. The trial court was ordered to transmit the original records of the case pertaining to Lot No. 1910 to the Intermediate Appellate Court.