G.R. No. 119393.

April 26, 2000

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILS. vs. CA, Robert Peuker, and Ma. Luz Trumpeta Esmeralda

PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI

DOCTRINE: If an appeal is taken from the regional trial court to the Court of Appeals and appellant raises
only a question of law, the appeal should be dismissed. The reason is that issues purely of law are
exclusively reviewable by this Court. When an appeal is taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of
Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode, it shall be dismissed. Thus, if an appeal by notice of appeal
is taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of Appeals and in the latter court, the appellant raises
naught but issues of law, the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

FACTS:
1. Private respondents filed with Pasig RTC a petition entitled, "In the Matter of the Petition for
Correction of entry in the Birth Certificate of the Minor Child Michael Esmeralda Peuker, Robert
Peuker and Maria Luz Trumpeta Esmeralda, petitioners"
2. The trial court set the case for hearing on March 29, 1989. However, the petition was not called
on said date because the court personnel staged a mass leave on that day. Thus, private
respondent's counsel asked the court officer-in-charge to reset the initial hearing to April 17,
1989. But petitioner's counsel (office of the Solicitor General), pleading non-availability on said
date, asked the court officer-in-charge to reset the hearing to May 2, 1989.
3. On April 17, 1989, despite prior opposition by the OSG to said date of hearing, the trial court
heard the case.
4. Private respondents marked and submitted in evidence documents containing the order fixing the
date of hearing of the petition on March 29, 1989.
5. On May 2, 1989, the Court personnel went on mass leave again. The next day, the OSG filed a
manifestation and motion that it had not received a copy of the petition and moved that private
respondents be required to furnish the OSG a copy of the petition.
6. The trial court admitted all the exhibits formally offered by private respondents and directed the
latter to furnish the OSG a copy of the petition. OSG received copy of the petition and its
annexes.
7. The trial court granted the petition and ordered the Local Civil Registrar of Mandaluyong, to
correct the record of birth of Michael Esmeralda Pueker
8. Believing that the trial court's judgment is contrary to law and evidence, the OSG filed a notice of
appeal to the Court of Appeals. Petitioner contended that the trial court committed serious error
and grave abuse of discretion in not dismissing the petition for correction of entry for lack of merit
and want of jurisdiction. It averred that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition
as it is defective in form and substance for failure to implead the local civil registrar, and for lack
of publication.
9. In their brief, private respondents pointed out that petitioner raised only a question of law. Thus,
they moved for the dismissal of the appeal based on the alleged wrong choice of mode of appeal
by petitioner.
10. In its reply brief, petitioner argued that while its appeal might have raised only a question of law,
the assailed decision, being a final judgment of the regional trial court, is within the exclusive
appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals pursuant to Section 9 of the Batas Pambansa 129.
11. Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal on the ground of wrong venue. The appellate
court ruled that the appeal should have been addressed to the Supreme Court, considering that
what was being raised was only a question of law. The Court of Appeals explained that it has
indeed exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments of the Regional Trial Courts.
However, those do not include matters falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court such as the power to review final judgments of lower courts in all questions in which only an
error or question of law is involved.
 12. Undaunted, petitioner filed the instant petition, alleging that the appellate court gravely erred in
dismissing its appeal.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A WRONG CHOICE MODE OF APPEAL MADE BY THE
PETITIONER

HELD: YES. The issue of whether the trial court acted without jurisdiction as well as whether it gravely
abused its discretion in granting the petition for correction of entry is undoubtedly a question of law.
The resolution of said issue does not require an evaluation of proof but on a consideration of the
applicable legal provisions and case law.

We agree with the appellate court's ruling that if an appeal is taken from the regional trial court to the
Court of Appeals and appellant raises only a question of law, the appeal should be dismissed. The
reason is that issues purely of law are exclusively reviewable by this Court. When an appeal is
taken to either the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals by the wrong or inappropriate mode, it shall be
dismissed. Thus, if an appeal by notice of appeal is taken from the Regional Trial Court to the Court of
Appeals and in the latter court, the appellant raises naught but issues of law, the appeal should be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In the case at bar, the procedure resorted to by petitioner is incorrect. Petitioner merely filed a notice of
appeal which is directed to the Court of Appeals, and raised therein only a question of law. But, to
reiterate, the Court of Appeals does not exercise jurisdiction over appeals from the regional trial courts
which raise purely a question of law. Appeals of this nature should be elevated to the Supreme Court.
Petitioner should have filed directly with this Court a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court. But it chose to file its notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the appellate
court did not err in dismissing petitioner's appeal.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.