NOLI LIM, PETITIONER, VS. ANGELITO DELOS SANTOS (DECEASED) NOW HIS HEIRS, REPRESENTED BY BELEN DELOS SANTOS, RESPONDENTS, DENIA R. ADOYO, ET AL., INTERVENORS, GLORIA MURILLO, ET…

Noli Lim versus Angelito delos Santos

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Noli Lim against Angelito delos Santos, now deceased and represented by his heirs, Belen delos Santos and others, with Denia Adoyo and others and Gloria Murillo and others appearing as intervenors. The action springs from a protest Lim filed against the free patent application of delos Santos over a parcel of land in Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. The case matters to a reviewee because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement on a procedural rule that decides appeals every session: the payment of the appeal fee within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional, and its omission is not cured by a bare plea for substantial justice.

Procedural History

The protest was first heard by the Regional Office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The Regional Executive Director dismissed the protest and directed that the free patent application be given due course. Lim appealed to the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, who affirmed the dismissal and denied his motion for reconsideration, likewise denying the motions for intervention and the separate protests of the other claimants. Lim then elevated the matter to the Office of the President. That Office dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appeal fee had not been paid, and denied his motion for reconsideration. Lim went up to the Court of Appeals on a petition for review, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the orders of the Office of the President. Hence this petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Facts

On July seventeenth, nineteen hundred ninety-one, Noli Lim filed a protest with the regional office of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources against the free patent application of Angelito delos Santos over a lot in Barrio Mar-Francisco, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro. Lim claimed that he and others were the actual occupants, that they had introduced improvements, and that when they entered the land in nineteen hundred sixty there were already improvements made by the tenants of Florencia Carl, the registered owner. He added that delos Santos never took possession and introduced no improvements.

The Regional Executive Director dismissed the protest, relying on a decision of the Regional Trial Court in a reversion case which had cancelled and nullified, for misrepresentation, the free patent and title issued in the name of Florencia Carl. That court had found that Carl and her children never entered or cultivated the land. The Regional Executive Director held that Lim, being the son of Carl's overseer, could not claim a better right. The Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources affirmed, noting the trial court's finding that as early as nineteen hundred thirty-six the father of delos Santos was actually occupying the land, and that after the father's death in nineteen hundred sixty-nine, delos Santos continued the cultivation and occupation.

Before the Office of the President, Lim was directed to file his appeal memorandum and to pay an appeal fee of five hundred pesos within fifteen days. He asked for and was granted an extension until November second, two thousand three. Instead of complying, on November tenth, after the extension had expired, he asked for another five days, which was not acted upon. He filed his appeal memorandum by registered mail on November fourteenth, but paid the appeal fee only on January seventh, two thousand four. In the meantime, on December twenty-second, two thousand three, the Office of the President dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because no appeal fee had been paid.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the orders of the Office of the President dismissing the appeal for failure to timely pay the corresponding appeal fee.
• Whether or not the petitioner's invocation of substantial justice and the alleged merit of his case justifies the relaxation of the rule on payment of appeal fees.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Administrative Order Number 18, prescribing the rules governing appeals to the Office of the President, provides:

Extension of time for the payment of appeal fee and the filing of pleadings shall not be allowed, except for good and sufficient cause and only if the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended.

This provision governs the petitioner's second motion for extension, which was filed after the period sought to be extended had already lapsed, and therefore could not be granted.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the payment of docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appellate body does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the decision or final order sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory. The payment of docket fees is not a mere technicality of law or procedure but an essential requirement for the perfection of an appeal. The petitioner failed to perfect his appeal despite having been given reasonable opportunity to do so. His second motion for extension was filed after the first extension had expired, and under Section 4 of Administrative Order Number 18 an extension may be granted only if the motion is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended. His explanation for the delay, that he waited for his mailed appeal memorandum to reach the Office of the President before paying the fee, was flimsy and insufficient.

On the second issue, the Court acknowledged that in exceptional cases it had allowed a liberal application of the rule, and it enumerated the recognized exceptions, among them most persuasive and weighty reasons, good faith shown by immediate payment within a reasonable time from the default, special or compelling circumstances, the merits of the case, and fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without the appellant's fault. The Court found that the petitioner's reason fell under none of these exceptions. It stressed that the bare invocation of the interest of substantial justice is not a magic wand that will automatically compel the Court to suspend procedural rules, and it quoted with approval:

Procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in prejudice to a party's substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons when they may be relaxed to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.

The Court further held that the findings of administrative agencies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts, and it was not convinced of the merit of the petitioner's case. It also declined to pass upon the claim of one Augusto Marte, who allegedly purchased a portion of the property, as that would require evidence beyond the ambit of the review.

Doctrine

The payment of docket or appeal fees within the prescribed period is mandatory and jurisdictional for the perfection of an appeal. Without it, the appellate body acquires no jurisdiction over the subject matter, and the decision or final order appealed from becomes final and executory by operation of law when the reglementary period lapses without a perfected appeal. The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law, and a party who seeks to avail of the privilege must comply with the requirements of the rules. The rule may be relaxed only for the most persuasive of reasons, and the bare invocation of substantial justice is not such a reason. Under Section 4 of Administrative Order Number 18, an extension of time to pay the appeal fee may be granted only for good and sufficient cause and only if the motion is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended.

Disposition

The petition was denied for lack of merit, the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, and costs were taxed against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process but a mere statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner and within the period fixed by law. Examiners use this case to test the jurisdictional nature of appeal fees, the limits of the substantial justice plea, and the strict rule on extensions under Section 4 of Administrative Order Number 18.