GR L 69129; (August, 1987) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-69129 August 31, 1987
ROGELIO B. RAGASAJO, petitioner, vs. THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and THE INTESTATE ESTATE OF FLORENTINO MANUNGAS, represented by its Administratrix ENGRACIA N. MANUNGAS, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Rogelio Ragasajo filed a civil suit for Cancellation of Titles against the Intestate Estate of Florentino Manungas before the Court of First Instance of Davao. The trial court rendered a decision upholding the validity of the respondent’s titles, nullifying the petitioner’s title, ordering him to vacate the property, and awarding damages and attorney’s fees to the respondent. The petitioner appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) by filing a notice of appeal.
The IAC clerk of court mailed a notice to petitioner’s counsel on December 9, 1983, requiring the filing of the appellant’s brief within 45 days from receipt. Counsel received this notice on December 29, 1983. No brief was filed by the deadline, and no motion for extension was sought. Consequently, on April 24, 1984, the private respondent filed an ex-parte motion to dismiss the appeal. The IAC, in a Resolution dated June 25, 1984, declared the appeal abandoned. Petitioner’s counsel received notice of this dismissal on July 11, 1984.
ISSUE
Whether the IAC acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the order declaring his appeal abandoned, thereby depriving him of his right to appeal.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The right to appeal is a statutory privilege, not a natural right, and must be exercised in strict accordance with procedural rules. The petitioner failed to file his appellant’s brief within the 45-day period prescribed by the IAC’s notice, which was received on December 29, 1983. He also filed no motion for an extension of time. His appeal was therefore correctly declared abandoned under the Rules of Court.
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the abandonment order. The IAC received this motion on July 30, 1984, and considered this the date of filing, denying it as late. The petitioner argued it was mailed on July 26, 1984. The Court upheld the IAC’s action, noting that under the rules, the date of receipt by the court, not the date of mailing, is the date of filing for purposes of timeliness. The petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of earlier filing with conclusive proof. Consequently, the IAC’s denial of the motion for reconsideration was proper. The Court also noted that any perceived ambiguity in the trial court’s dispositive portion regarding the specific lot to be vacated was a matter for correction by the trial court upon enforcement of the judgment and was not a proper subject for the certiorari proceeding.