G.R. No. 158379 - SPOUSES PONCIANO & PACITA DELA CRUZ, VS. HEIRS OF PABLO SUNIA, ETC.,[1].D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff: ordering the dismissal of the complaint; declaring the plaintiffs without any right to the 8,078 square meters which they claim [sic] included in the defendants[] title, and ordering them to vacate and surrender the same to the defendants; ordering plaintiffs jointly and severally to pay defendants by way of damages P25,000.00 for attorneys fees and P10,000.00 for litigation expenses[,] the latter having been compelled to litigate. No Costs. SO ORDERED . On 8 May 2001, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On 25 July 2001, the RTC issued an Order [7] denying the motion. Subsequently, on 9 August 2001, petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal via registered mail. [8] It was received by the RTC on 14 August 2001. Thus, on 17 August 2001, the RTC issued another Order [9] stating as follows: The Notice of Appeal having been filed within the reglementary period, let, therefore, the entire records of this case be forwarded to the Court of Appeals for final determination. SO ORDERED . It appears that petitioners, through their son Roberto dela Cruz, exerted efforts to pay the docket fees for the appeal sometime in the second week of August 2001. However, the RTC personnel refused to accept the payment and insisted that petitioners instead pay at the CA in Manila. Petitioners tried to pay again sometime in October 2001, in November 2001, and on 23 April 2002, to no avail. [10] On 12 April 2002, petitioner received a CA Resolution dated 9 April 2002 directing the Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC to forward proof of payment of the docket fees. On 24 April 2002, petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion asking the CA to allow them to pay the docket fees, explaining why they were unable to do so within the period required by the Rules of Court. On 4 October 2002, the CA issued a Resolution requiring petitioners to submit official receipts as proof of payment of the docket fees. Again, petitioners filed a Manifestation [11] explaining to the court why they had failed to pay the required docket fees. Eventually, on 6 January 2003, the CA issued the first assailed Resolution dismissing the appeal. It held that petitioners only had until 8 August 2001 to file their Notice of Appeal. In reaching this conclusion, it counted fifteen (15) days from 25 July 2001, the date when the RTC promulgated the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration of petitioners. However, the CA considered 25 July 2001 as the first day in the counting. It held that since petitioners had filed their Notice of Appeal on 9 August 2001, they had filed out of time. The CA also held that petitioners failed to pay the docket fees within the reglementary period. It apparently believed petitioners allegations that the court personnel of the RTC refused the payment of docket fees. Nevertheless, the CA stated that since the payment had been made sometime in the second week of August 2001, th