G.R. No. L-77040 November 29, 1988
ALEJANDRO MAGTIBAY, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES MAXIMO PORTO and ROSARIO ANDAYA, respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a decision by the Regional Trial Court of Siniloan, Laguna, in favor of the private respondents, the spouses Porto, for recovery of possession of land against petitioner Alejandro Magtibay. The decision was received by Magtibay’s counsel on October 5, 1985, and he filed a Notice of Appeal on the same day. The trial court, acting on this notice, issued an order on October 9, 1985, directing the transmittal of the records to the appellate court. Subsequently, on October 11, 1985, the private respondents filed a motion for execution pending appeal, which the trial court granted via an order dated October 25, 1985, upon the filing of a bond. A writ of partial execution was subsequently issued, and possession of the land was delivered to the private respondents.
Magtibay challenged the trial court’s authority to issue the execution order before the Court of Appeals, arguing that his appeal was perfected upon the filing of his Notice of Appeal and the trial court’s October 9 order for transmittal of records, thereby divesting the trial court of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals dismissed his petition, prompting Magtibay to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court retained jurisdiction to issue an order for partial execution pending appeal after the petitioner had filed his Notice of Appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the rulings of the lower courts. The legal logic centers on the precise moment an appeal is deemed perfected under the applicable Interim Rules. The Court clarified that the mere filing of a notice of appeal by one party does not instantly perfect the appeal or strip the trial court of jurisdiction. Per Section 23 of the Interim Rules, the perfection of an appeal occurs “upon the expiration of the last day to appeal by any party.”
In this case, while Magtibay filed his notice on October 5, 1985, the fifteen-day reglementary period to appeal continued to run for all parties, including the private respondents who received the decision on the same date. Their last day to appeal was October 20, 1985. Consequently, the appeal was not perfected until after that date. The private respondents filed their motion for execution pending appeal on October 11, 1985, which was before the expiration of the last day to appeal for any party. Therefore, the trial court still retained jurisdiction over the case at that time to resolve the motion. The fact that the court resolved the motion and issued the execution order on October 25, 1985, after the perfection period, was immaterial, as the motion was filed while jurisdiction was intact. The Court cited precedent noting the impracticality of requiring trial courts to resolve such motions strictly within the appeal period.