Manila Memorial Park v. CA, G.R. No.

137122, November 15, 2000

Facts Private respondents filed an action for reconveyance and recovery of parcels of land
against petitioner. After a protracted litigation, the trial court dismissed the complaint. The
court ruled that the claims had been barred by the statute of limitations and laches. Private
respondents filed a motion for new trial and/or reconsideration, which was denied by the trial
court. On appeal to the CA, the
records were not transmitted to the appellate court due to missing transcript of stenographic
notes. Thereafter, the respondents filed a motion for new trial since reconstitution of the
missing stenographic notes was no longer possible which was granted by the trial court.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, invoking that the trial court erred in holding that
the petitioner was barred from assailing the timeliness of the appeal and in granting the
motion for new trial. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that
petitioner was stopped by laches in assailing the notice of appeal which had been given due
course by the trial court.
Issue WON CA erred in not holding that the perfection of an appeal within the time prescribed is
jurisdictional and as such it can be assailed at anytime.
Ruling No, the Supreme Court ruled that Petitioner could not be faulted for its failure to move for
the dismissal of the appeal at an earlier time acting upon the assumption that the appeal was
filed on time relying on the order of the trial court that the notice of appeal had been filed
within the reglementary period. The legality of the appeal may be raised at any stage of the
proceedings in the appellate court and the latter is not precluded from dismissing the petition
on the ground of its having then filed out of time. The respondents did not attempt to explain
the reason for the delay and instead blamed the petitioner for its failure to assail the
timeliness of the appeal.