i. Appeal from MTC to RTC (Rule 40)

Rules 40 and 41

• If by notice of appeal:

Appeal is deemed perfected as to the party appealing upon the filing of the notice of appeal and full payment of appeal fees in due time.

• If by record on appeal:

Appeal is deemed perfected as to the party appealing upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time. (Rule 41, Sec. 9)

(De Leon, Appellate Remedies, 2013, p. 53, citing Lebin vs. Mirasol, G.R. No. 164255, 2011)

Q: X, filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus praying that the head social worker of DSWD be ordered to produce the person of her minor granddaughter, Y before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City. Z, the surviving parent of Y, for her part, filed a Complaint-inIntervention seeking to be granted custody of her child. The RTC on August 5, 2010 upheld Z’s right to parental custody and authority but held in the meantime, it will be for the best interest of the minor to stay with X for the school year 2009- 2010. Thus, the RTC granted temporary custody of the minor to X. X filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging therein that Z is unfit to take care of her child, who, allegedly, verbally maltreats Y. On August 31, 2010, the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration of X and on the same day Z filed her comment with motion for partial reconsideration dated August 27, 2010. In sum, Z asserted that the custody of Y should be granted in her favor immediately and not only after school year 2009-2010. X, due to the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration, filed a notice of appeal on September 8, 2010. However, the RTC issued an order dated September 9, 2010 ruling that the assailed August 5 decision and the August 31 order denying the MR have not yet attained finality and thus not subject to an appeal. Hence the notice of appeal was denied due course. X then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 the orders of the RTC denying his notice of appeal. The CA held that the RTC's Decision cannot yet be considered a judgment that may be appealed due to the filing of Z’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration because unlike a 'final judgment or order, which is appealable, an 'interlocutory order may not be questioned on appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken from the final judgment rendered in the case. Did the CA erred in denying X’s Certiorari Petition, holding that the RTC did not commit grave abuse of discretion when the latter denied X’s Notice of Appeal due to the pendency of Z’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration?

A: Yes. With respect to X, the RTC's Decision did not cease to be an appealable judgment, transforming into a mere interlocutory order, for the sole reason that the opposing party, Z, filed her own Motion for Partial Reconsideration. With X's own Motion for Reconsideration having been denied by the RTC, according to Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, X already had 15 days to file a Notice of Appeal regardless of Z filing her own Motion for Reconsideration. There is nothing in the Rules which makes a party's right to appeal dependent or contingent on the opposing party's motion for reconsideration. Similarly, a party's undertaking to file a motion for reconsideration of a judgment is not hindered by the other party's filing of a notice of appeal. Hence, a party's ability to file his/her own appeal upon receipt of the assailed judgment or the denial of a motion for reconsideration challenging the said judgment within the reglementary period of 15 days is not affected by the other parties' exercise of discretion to file their respective motions for reconsideration. (Bernardo v. Soriano, G.R. No. 200104, June 19, 2019)

Q: Spouses X allegedly purchased a parcel of land located at 58 Aries St., Bel Air, Makati (Bel Air Property), and a condominium unit 602-A at the Ritz Tower, Ayala Avenue, Makati City (Ritz Condominium Unit and the titles thereof were allegedly placed in the name of their son, Y, in trust for his parents and siblings.

On November 13, 2013, the other legitimate children of the Spouses X (Petitioner Z) filed a Complaint against their brother Y, his wife, Union Bank, Philippine Savings Bank and the Register of Deeds of Makati praying that they likewise be declared lawful owners of the subject properties as heirs and legitimate children of the Spouses X, in accordance with a purported express trust agreement and the provisions of the Civil Code on succession. X and his wife filed a motion to dismiss.

The RTC granted Y’s motion to dismiss. Thus, Petitioner Z filed the instant Petition under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules), alleging, among others, that the RTC erred in dismissing the complaint on the grounds of: 1) failure to state a cause of action; 2) lack of legal capacity to sue; and 3) ack of cause of action. Did Petitioners Z avail the correct remedy to challenge the dismissal of the Complaint? Is the Complaint correctly dismissed?

A: No. Petitioners Z availed of the wrong remedy and disregarded the hierarchy of courts.

Rule 41, Section 1 expressly states that no appeal may be taken from an order dismissing an action without prejudice. In such cases, the remedy available to the aggrieved party is to file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

In Strongworld Construction Corp. v. Perello, the Court explained that: [W]ith the advent of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, an order of dismissal without prejudice is no longer appealable, as expressly provided by Section 1(h), Rule 41 thereof. Section 1, Rule 41 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure recites the instances when appeal may not be taken, specifically, in case of an order dismissing an action without prejudice, in which case, the remedy available to the aggrieved party is Rule 65.

A dismissal with prejudice disallows and bars the refiling of the complaint; whereas, the same cannot be said of a dismissal without prejudice. Likewise, where the law permits, a dismissal with prejudice is subject to the right of appeal.

Briefly stated, dismissals that are based on the following grounds, to wit: (1) that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment or by the statute of limitations; (2) that the claim or demand set forth in the plaintiff's pleading has been paid, waived, abandoned or otherwise extinguished; and (3) that the claim on which the action is founded is unenforceable under the provisions of the statute of frauds, bar the refiling of the same action or claim. Logically, the nature of the dismissal founded on any of the preceding grounds is "with prejudice" because the dismissal prevents the refiling of the same action or claim. Ergo, dismissals based on the rest of the grounds enumerated in Section 1, Rule 16 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure are without prejudice because they do not preclude the refiling of the same action.

A perusal of the Assailed Resolution unequivocally shows that the action was dismissed without prejudice. Although Y claimed in their motions to dismiss that the action had prescribed and was unenforceable under Rule 16, Sections 1 (f) and 1 (i) respectively, the RTC's dismissal was premised on the finding that Petitioner Z were suing as heirs of the Sps. X who, being Indian nationals, were prohibited from owning the subject properties and therefore could not transmit rights over the same through succession. In other words, the dismissal was based on Rule 16, Section 1 (g), i.e., that the Complaint states no cause of action.

As the dismissal was without prejudice (not having been premised on Sections 1 (f), (h) or (i) of Rule 16), the remedy of appeal was not available. Instead, Petitioners Z should have simply refiled the complaint.

Notably, the RTC also grounded the dismissal on petitioner Z's alleged lack of cause of action. In Westmont Bank v. Funai Phils., Corp., the Court distinguished failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action in this wise; "Failure to state a cause of action and lack of cause of action are distinct grounds to dismiss a particular action. The former refers to the insufficiency of the allegations in the pleading, while the latter to the insufficiency of the factual basis for the action. Dismissal for failure to state a cause of action may be raised at the earliest stages of the proceedings through a motion to dismiss under Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, while dismissal for lack of cause of action may be raised any time after the questions of fact have been resolved on the basis of stipulations, admissions or evidence presented by the plaintiff."

As applied to the instant case, lack of cause of action could not have been the basis for the dismissal of the instant action considering that no stipulations, admissions or evidence have yet been presented. The RTC's inaccurate pronouncement, however, should have been challenged through a Rule 65 petition for certiorari and not through an appeal, as expressly provided in Rule 41, Section 1. Moreover, the challenge should have been brought to the Court of Appeals instead of filing the same directly with the Court, in accordance with the rule on hierarchy of courts.

In view of the foregoing, the instant petition must be dismissed as petitioner Z availed themselves of the wrong remedy and violated the hierarchy of courts.

A: Yes, The complaint was correctly dismissed; The complaint failed to state a cause of action.

In Philippine National Bank v. Spouses Rivera, the Court explained: Section 2, Rule 2 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure defines a cause of action as the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another. Its elements are as follows: 1) A right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; 2) An obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and 3) Act or omission on the part of such defendant in violation of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages or other appropriate relief.

If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of the above elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action which is the proper remedy under Section 1 (g) of Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure.

The case of Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited v. Catalan laid down the test to determine the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint, to wit: The elementary test for failure to state a cause of action is whether the complaint alleges facts which if true would justify the relief demanded.

By filing a Motion to Dismiss, a defendant hypothetically admits the truth of the material allegations of the ultimate facts contained in the plaintiff's complaint. When a motion to dismiss is grounded on the failure to state a cause of action, a ruling thereon should, as a rule, be based only on the facts alleged in the complaint.

Based on the foregoing, the Court agrees with the RTC that petitioner Z failed to state a cause of action because they premised their claim of ownership over the subject properties as heirs of the Spouses X who were unquestionably Indian nationals.

Aliens are absolutely prohibited from acquiring public or private lands in the Philippines, save only in constitutionally recognized exceptions. Further, "[t]he prohibition against aliens owning lands in the Philippines is subject only to limited constitutional exceptions, and not even an implied trust can be permitted on equity considerations.

After a judicious examination of the allegations in the complaint, the Court finds that petitioner Z failed to sufficiently allege the basis for their purported right over the subject properties. Since the Sps. X were prohibited from owning land in the instant case, they were likewise prohibited from transmitting any right over the same through succession. (Heirs of Sadhwani v. Sadhwani, G.R. No. 217365, August 14, 2019.)

Where to Appeal

May be taken to the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the area to which the former pertains. (Rule 40, Sec. 1)

The title of the case shall remain as it was in the court of origin, but the party appealing shall be further referred to as the appellant and the adverse party, the appellee.

After an appeal to the RTC has been perfected, the MTC loses jurisdiction over the case and any motion for the execution of the judgment should be filed with the RTC (Rule 40, Section 1), subject to the MTC’s residual jurisdiction under Rule 41, Section 9 in relation to Rule 40, Section 4.

MODE OF APPEAL: Notice of Appeal

The notice of appeal does not require the approval of the court. The function of the notice of appeal is merely to notify the trial court that the appellant was availing of the right to appeal, and not to seek the court’s permission that he be allowed to pose an appeal. (Crisologo v. Daray A.M. No. RTJ-07-2036, 2006)

How to Appeal

• FILE a notice of appeal within 15/30 days from notice of judgment or final order with the court that rendered it, and SERVE upon the adverse party.
• PAY the full amount of the appellate court docket and other legal fees to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or final order. (BUT, failure to pay warrants only discretion to dismiss the appeal.) (Rule 40, Sec. 3)

NOTICE OF APPEAL should indicate:

• Parties to the appeal.
• Date of judgment or final order or part thereof appealed from.
• Court to which the appeal is being taken; and
• Material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal (i.e., when the judgment or final order was received, when the motion for reconsideration or new trial was filed, and when denial of the motion for reconsideration or motion for new trial was received) (Material Data Rule).

RECORD ON APPEAL, w/c is required only in

• Certain kinds of special proceedings; or
• Other cases of multiple or separate appeals,

shall:

• State the full names of the parties to the proceedings in its caption
• Include:
• Judgment or final order from which the appeal is taken
• In chronological order, copies of such pleadings, petitions, motions, and all interlocutory orders as are related to the appealed judgment or final order for the proper understanding of the issue involved; and
• Such data as will show that the appeal was perfected on time.
• Contain a subject index, if it exceeds 20 pages

Copies of the notice of appeal and the record on appeal (when required) shall be served on the adverse party.

Appellate Court Docket and Other Lawful Fees

Within the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the Clerk of the Court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees. (Rule 40, Sec. 5)

Proof of payment shall be transmitted to appellate court together with the original record or the record on appeal, as the case may be.

Note: It is the responsibility of the MTC clerk of court to attach appellant’s proof of payment to the original record. Whatever omission or negligence on the part of such clerk of court should not adversely affect the appellant. (De Leon, Appellate Remedies, 2013, p. 42)

Payment of docket fees within the period to appeal is MANDATORY for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the decision sought to be appealed becomes final and executory. (Alfonso vs. Andres, G.R. 139611, 2002). The payment of the appellate docket fee is not a mere technicality of law or procedure but an essential requirement for the perfection of an appeal (Enriquez vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 139303, 2005) and without which the decision or final order appealed from would become final and executory as if no appeal was filed at all. (Sps. Manalili vs. Sps. De Leon, G.R. No. 140858, 2001)

Note: While, in appealed cases, the full payment of the appellate docket fees within the prescribed period is mandatory, even jurisdictional, the failure to pay warrants only discretionary as opposed to automatic dismissal of the appeal. (De Leon, Appellate Remedies, 2013, p. 41) This is true under Rule 40 (Badillo v. Tayag, G.R. No. 143976, 2003)

General Rule: The court will dismiss the appeal when there is no full payment of appellate docket fees within the prescribed period to appeal.

Exceptions: which warrant a relaxation of the application of rules on payment of docket fees:

• Most persuasive and weighty reasons.
• To relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his/her failure to comply with the prescribed procedure.
• Good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable time from the time of default.
• The existence of special or compelling circumstances.
• The merits of the case.
• A cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules.
• A lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory.
• The other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.
• Fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without appellant’s fault.
• Peculiar legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case.
• In the name of substantial justice and fair play.
• Importance of the issues involved; and
• Exercise of sound discretion by the judge guided by all the attendant circumstances. (Villena v. Rupisan, GR No. 167620, 2007)

Duty of the Clerk of Court

Within fifteen (15) days from the perfection of the appeal, the clerk of court or the branch clerk of court of the lower court shall transmit the original record on appeal, together with the transcripts and exhibits, which he/she shall certify as complete, to the proper RTC.

A copy of his/her letter of transmittal of the records shall be furnished the parties. (Rule 40, Sec. 6)

Note: Still, it must be emphasized that the reckoning point for the RTC to acquire jurisdiction over the appeal is NOT the receipt of the letter of transmittal and of the notice of appealed case, but the timely filing of the notice of appeal in accordance with Sec. 9, Rule 41. (De Leon, Appellate Remedies, 2013, p. 44)

Procedure in the Regional Trial Court

• Upon receipt of the complete record or the record on appeal, the clerk of court of the RTC shall notify the parties of such fact.
• Within fifteen (15) days from notice, it shall be the duty of the appellant to submit a MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL to briefly discuss the errors imputed to the lower court, and a copy shall be furnished by him/her to the adverse party.
• Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the appellant’s memorandum, the appellee may file his/her MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL; and
• Upon filing of the memorandum of the appellee, OR the expiration of the period to do so, the case shall be considered SUBMITTED FOR DECISION. (Rule 40, Sec. 7)

The RTC shall decide the case on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings in the court of origin and such memoranda as are filed.

Failure of the APELLANT to file a memorandum shall be a ground for the dismissal of the appeal. The requirement for the submission of appellant’s memorandum is a mandatory and compulsory rule. Non-compliance therewith authorizes the dismissal of the appeal.

Where the party has appealed by counsel in the inferior court, the notice should be sent to his attorney; BUT if the notice is sent to the party himself/herself and he/she actually received the same, such notice is valid and binding.

RTC can decide errors not assigned in the appeal memorandum

The RTC presently decides all appeals from the MTC based on the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the RTC. As a consequence, the RTC, in exercising its appellate jurisdiction, is not limited to errors assigned in the appeal memorandum.

Thus, in Macaslang v. Zamora (G.R. No. 156375, 2011), it was held that the RTC, as an appellate court, could rule on the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action and the lack of demand to vacate even if not assigned in the appeal. (De Leon, Appellate Remedies, 2013, p. 49)

Without Trial; Lack of Jurisdiction

If an Appeal is Taken from an Order of the Lower Court (i.e., MTC) Dismissing the Case

WITHOUT TRIAL on the Merits – The Regional Trial Court may:

• If AFFIRMED - and the ground of the dismissal is lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, the Regional Trial Court, if it has jurisdiction, SHALL TRY the case on the merits AS IF the case was originally filed with it.
• If REVERSED - the case shall be remanded to the MTC for further proceedings.

If the Case WAS TRIED on the Merits by the Lower Court (i.e., MTC) Without Jurisdiction over the Subject Matter:

The RTC on appeal shall NOT dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction thereof, BUT shall decide the case WITHOUT prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice. (Rule 40, Sec. 8)

An appeal taken by filing a notice of appeal (and a record on appeal, when proper) from a judgment or final order of the RTC on questions of fact and law.