MERCEDES T. SONORA, JESUS T. SONORA, TRINIDAD T. SONORA, AND THE HEIRS OF JUAN T. SONORA, PETITIONERS, VS. FRANCISCO A. TONGOY, FOR HIMSELF AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF…

Sonora versus Tongoy

The Case

This is the case of Sonora versus Tongoy. The petitioners are Mercedes, Jesus, and Trinidad Sonora, together with the heirs of Juan Sonora. They sued the respondents, Francisco Tongoy and the heirs of Luis Tongoy, to recover their shares in two parcels of land known as Hacienda Pulo and the Cuaycong Property, which stood registered in the name of the Estate of Luis Tongoy. The Sonoras claimed that the lands had been placed in Luis Tongoy's name under a trust agreement obliging him to return them to their mother, Jovita Tongoy Sonora. The Tongoys, for their part, claimed that they had been effectively preterited, meaning omitted from the inheritance of their common predecessor Francisco Tongoy, through transfers made by Luis without their knowledge and consent. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a clean lesson on appellate jurisdiction: on what happens when an appeal is sent to the wrong court, and on whether the parties' own choice or acquiescence can confer or defeat jurisdiction.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed in June 1966 in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. After proceedings lasting until January 1969, the trial judge, Judge Jose Querubin, rendered his decision in October 1968 and issued a clarificatory order in January 1969. He dismissed the complaint as against the Sonoras, holding that the trust they relied upon was an implied trust and not an express trust. He nevertheless ordered the defendants to reconvey four fifths of the lands to the Tongoy plaintiffs, leaving only one fifth to the private respondents.

Both sides appealed within their reglementary periods. The private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Sonoras filed their notice of appeal, appeal bond, and record on appeal, but their notice specified that their appeal was to the Supreme Court. The trial court, now presided by Judge Oscar Victoriano, approved the records on appeal and directed the clerk of court to forward them to the Court of Appeals. The Sonoras' appeal went there, and they submitted to that court's jurisdiction. On motion of the private respondents, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution dismissing the Sonoras' appeal, reasoning that since their notice named the Supreme Court, the appellate court could not entertain it, and since no petition for review under Republic Act 5440 appeared to have been filed, no appeal had been perfected at all. The Sonoras came to the Supreme Court. The appeal was originally taken as an appeal from the dismissal resolution, but the Court later treated it as an original action for certiorari in order to expedite disposition, since the flaw in the resolution was manifest and the related appeal of the other parties was still pending in the appellate court.

Facts

The Sonoras and the Tongoys trace their claims to the same family lands. The Sonoras say that Hacienda Pulo and the Cuaycong Property were placed in the name of Luis Tongoy under a trust agreement, and that Luis was bound to return them to Jovita Tongoy Sonora. The Tongoys say that these same lands were transferred to Luis without their knowledge and consent, and that the transfers effectively preterited them in the estate of Francisco Tongoy, their common predecessor with Luis.

The trial court resolved the two claims differently. It dismissed the Sonoras' complaint because their trust was, in its view, an implied trust rather than an express trust. It sustained the Tongoys and ordered a reconveyance of four fifths of the lands to them, leaving one fifth with the private respondents.

Both groups appealed. The Sonoras' notice of appeal named the Supreme Court, yet the trial court directed the records to the Court of Appeals, and the Sonoras followed their appeal there. The Court of Appeals then dismissed their appeal outright, and that dismissal is what the Supreme Court reviewed.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to dismiss the Sonoras' appeal, given that the appeal was, by the notice, intended for the Supreme Court.
• Whether or not the Sonoras' appeal should be certified to the proper court rather than dismissed, when an appeal is erroneously brought before the wrong appellate court.
• Whether or not the Sonoras' acquiescence and submission to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals barred the correction of the error.
• Whether or not the specification of the wrong court in the notice of appeal is fatal to the appeal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 31 of the Judiciary Act provides:

All cases which may be erroneously brought to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeals shall be sent to the proper court, which shall hear the same, as if it had originally been brought before it.

This is the statutory command that an appeal filed in the wrong court is not lost but transferred to the court that should hear it.

Section 3 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court provides:

Where the appealed case has been erroneously brought before the Court of Appeals, it shall not dismiss the case, but shall certify the case to the proper court, with a specific and clear statement of the grounds therefor.

This is the procedural rule the Court of Appeals disregarded when it dismissed the Sonoras' appeal instead of certifying it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals had no power or jurisdiction to act on the private respondents' motion to dismiss. Since that court itself assumed the appeal was intended exclusively for the Supreme Court, it could not dismiss an appeal that was not within its appellate jurisdiction. Dismissing such an appeal is absurd.

On the second issue, the Court held that the dismissal was in complete disregard of the unequivocal injunction of Section 3 of Rule 50. Under Section 31 of the Judiciary Act, all cases erroneously brought to the Supreme Court or to the Court of Appeals shall be sent to the proper court, which shall hear the same as if it had originally been brought before it. The law anticipated exactly this mistake, so that the interests of justice would not suffer merely because an appellant or a trial court sent the appeal to the wrong court.

On the third issue, the Court held that the Sonoras' submission to the Court of Appeals was of no consequence, because as a rule it is the law and not the choice of the parties that determines jurisdiction, whether original or appellate. More decisive, the Sonoras had no alternative but to take their appeal to the Court of Appeals. Their appeal and the private respondents' appeal arose from the same decision and were inextricably connected. The Sonoras attacked no factual finding, while the private respondents questioned the findings of fact. Should the Court of Appeals alter those findings, the legal consequences on the Sonoras' claim could not be foreseen. Following the earlier ruling in Santos versus Baylon, both appeals should be resolved together by the same court, the Court of Appeals, the only court with authority to review factual findings.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the specification of the court in the notice of appeal is merely directory. Citing Valerio versus Tan, it ruled that failure to comply with the requirement, or an error as to the court indicated, is not fatal to the appeal. The Sonoras were not entirely without justification in originally proposing to come directly to the Supreme Court, and it would be less than fair to cut off their right to appeal by a literal reading of the rules that disregards their wise and practical construction.

Doctrine

First, jurisdiction is fixed by law and not by the choice or acquiescence of the parties. Neither consent nor submission can confer appellate jurisdiction on a court that the law does not authorize.

Second, an appeal erroneously brought to the wrong appellate court shall not be dismissed. Under Section 31 of the Judiciary Act and Section 3 of Rule 50, the case shall be certified or sent to the proper court, which shall hear it as if it had originally been brought there.

Third, the requirement in the notice of appeal to specify the court to which the appeal is taken is merely directory. An error in naming the court is not fatal to the appeal.

Fourth, where two appeals from the same decision are so connected that the factual findings in one may affect the legal claim in the other, both should be resolved together by the court with authority to review the facts, the Court of Appeals.

Disposition

The petition was granted. The Court of Appeals was directed to give due course to the Sonoras' appeal, for consideration and resolution together with the appeal of the private respondents, with costs against the private respondents.

Remember This

Memorize this line: it is the law, not the choice of the parties, that determines jurisdiction, and an appeal sent to the wrong court is certified to the proper court, not dismissed. Examiners use this case on appellate procedure, particularly on the directory nature of the notice of appeal and on the mandatory certification of erroneously filed appeals.