G.R. No. L-24873. September 23, 1966
THE SPOUSES BASILISA ROQUE AND FRANCISCO BAUTISTA, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLEES, VS. ARACELI W. VDA. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ARACELI W. VDA. DEL ROSARIO, DEFENDANT …
MAKALINTAL, J.:
dismiss the appeal taken to this Court by defendant-appellant, invoke
the fact that the record on appeal was filed in the trial court beyond
the reglementary period. This fact is admitted. There was a delay of
fourteen (14) days, and it was called to the attention of the said
court when the plaintiffs filed therein a motion for execution of the
judgment and a subsequent motion to dismiss the appeal. Both motions,
however, were denied, the court stating that the notice of appeal and
the appeal bond had been filed on time. This is also the ground upon
which appellant now opposes the petition filed here to dismiss the
appeal.
It is already the settled rule that the timely perfection of the
appeal is a jurisdictional requisite to enable the appellate court to
take cognizance of the case. In Government of the Philippines vs. Luis
Antonio, et al. G. R. No. L-23736, October 19, 1963, this Court said
that “unless the appeal is perfected on time, the appellate court
acquires no jurisdiction over the appealed case, and has power only to
dismiss the appeal.” The case of Santiago v. Valenzuela, 78 Phil. 397,
cited by appellant, is different from the present one in that the
motion to dismiss the appeal there was filed for the first time in the
appellate court; and in any event the ruling laid down therein was
subsequently abandoned in the cases of Miranda vs. Guanzon, 92 Phil.
168, (October 27, 1952) and Valdez vs. Acumen, G. R. No. L-13536
(January 29, 1960).
As prayed for, the appeal is dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.
Regala, J., no part.