REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

MANILA

SPECIAL EIGHTH DIVISION

VICENTE PESCOZO, SR. CA-G.R. SP No. 162001

AND SPS. DOMINADOR
& ANGELITA PESCOZO,
Petitioners, Members:

GARCIA, R. R.,
-versus- Chairperson
*
ROBENIOL, G. T., and
PAYOYO-VILLORDON, T. M., JJ.
HEIRS OF FRANCISCO
TORRES & EUFROCINA
PENERA TORRES,
NAMELY: HRS. OF
JULIA TORRES BEQUIN,
EVELYN T. PAJES- Promulgated:
MACALOS, CECILIA
TORRES BERAME &
LEONORA P. TORRES, August 30, 2019
Respondents.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

RESOLUTION

GARCIA, R. R., J.:

Before Us is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 43 of the Rules of

Court assailing the Decision2 dated June 25, 2013 of public
respondent Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) denying herein petitioners' appeal from the Decision dated
April 30, 2004 of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator

*
Vice Justice Louis P. Acosta who is on leave, for Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes who is on Wellness
Leave per Raffle dated August 27, 2019.
1
Rollo, pp. 3-16.
2
Rollo, pp. 19-26.
CA-G.R. SP No. 162001 Page 2 of 4
Resolution

(PARAD); and the Resolution3 dated May 31, 2019 denying the
motion for reconsideration thereof.

We dismiss outright the instant petition.

Sections 4 and 7, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 4. Period of appeal. — The appeal shall be

taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from
the date of its last publication, if publication is required by
law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner's motion
for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance
with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. Only
one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Upon
proper motion and the payment of the full amount of the
docket fee before the expiration of the reglementary period,
the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of
fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for
review. No further extension shall be granted except for the
most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15)
days.

Sec. 7. Effect of failure to comply with requirements.

- The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the
foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the
docket and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs,
proof of service of the petition, and the contents of
and the documents which should accompany the
petition shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal
thereof. (Emphasis supplied)

Verily, a Petition for Review from a decision or final order of

quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals must be made within
fifteen (15) days from notice. Within this period, the full amount of
the appellate court docket and other lawful fees must be paid. Such
requirement of paying the full amount of the appellate docket fees
within the prescribed period is not a mere technicality of law or
procedure but mandatory and jurisdictional.

Here, We note that petitioners received on July 8, 2019 the

denial of their motion for reconsideration of the assailed Decision of
the DARAB. As such, they have fifteen (15) days, or until July 23,
2019, within which to file a petition for review before this Court. The
instant petition was filed on July 22, 2019 well within the prescriptive

3
Rollo, pp. 17-18.
CA-G.R. SP No. 162001 Page 3 of 4
Resolution

period. However, We note that the docket fee is short of the amount
of P4,530.00. While petitioners manifested that they be given the
opportunity to satisfy any deficiency in the docket fees should there
be any, it bears to stress that the payment of the full amount of the
docket fee within the reglementary period is an indispensable step for
the perfection of an appeal. In both original and appellate cases, the
court acquires jurisdiction over the case only upon the payment of the
prescribed docket fees. Inasmuch as the payment of the docket fees in
this case was insufficient, the Court of Appeals did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case, except to order its dismissal.

While We recognize certain peculiar circumstances attendant in

a case that may warrant the relaxation of the strict application of the
rules on the payment of docket fees, We do not find any persuasive
and weighty reason in this case that would allow us to exercise our
discretion not to adhere to the strict requirement of the law. A perusal
of the instant petition reveals that the same also suffers from other
procedural infirmities as follows:

1. The addresses of the parties are not indicated;

2. Petitioner Vicente Pescozo, Sr. did not execute a

Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping;
and,

3. Except for the certified true copies of the assailed

Decision and Resolution of the DARAB, the petition is not
accompanied by copies of pleadings and other material
portions of the record as would support the allegations in
the petition as required under Section 6, Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court.

To stress, Section 7, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court provides that

the failure of petitioners to comply with any of the requirements
regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees and the
contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition
shall be a sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

It is doctrinally entrenched that appeal is not a constitutional

right but a mere statutory privilege. Accordingly, the parties who seek
to avail of the privilege must comply with the statutes or rules
allowing it. The right is unavoidably forfeited by the litigant who does
not comply with the manner thus prescribed. The perfection of an
appeal in the manner and within the period set by law is not only
mandatory, but jurisdictional as well. Procedural rules setting the
period for perfecting an appeal or filing an appellate petition are
 CA-G.R. SP No. 162001 Page 4 of 4
Resolution

generally inviolable.4

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for

Review is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly this case is deemed
CLOSED and TERMINATED.

SO ORDERED.

RAMON R. GARCIA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

GABRIEL T. ROBENIOL TITA MARILYN B. PAYOYO-VILLORDON

Associate Justice Associate Justice

4
Cadena v. CSC, G.R. No. 191412, January 17, 2012; PNB v. CIR, G.R. No. 172458, December 14,
2011; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ascott Holdings, G.R. No. 175163, October 19, 2007.