APPEALS

RULE 40
APPEALS FROM THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS TO THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS

Appeal

DEFINITION
Appeal is a proceeding by which a party seeks from a higher court the review of a judgment or final order of
lower court on the ground that the judgment or final order is against the evidence or the law.

WHERE TO APPEAL:
An appeal from a judgment or final order of a Municipal Trial Court may be taken to the Regional exercising
jurisdiction over the area to which the former pertains.

WHEN TO APPEAL:
An appeal may be taken within 15 days after notice to the appellant of the judgment or final order appealed
from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appeal is taken within 30 days after notice of the judgment or final
order.

The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. (S2 & 3 R40)
*petition for relief (Fresh-period rule not applicable).

Where a motion for reconsideration or new trial is filed and then denied, the movant has a fresh period of 15
days to file the notice of appeal, counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration or new trial.
(Neypes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 141524, 14 September 2005).

HOW TO APPEAL:
The appeal is taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the judgment or final order appealed
from. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within 30
days after notice of the judgment or final order.

BONDS:
The prior requirement of appeal bonds under S3 R40 and S5 R41 was removed by the Interim Rules.
An exception is found under Section 46 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (R.A. No. 9285) which provides
that the losing party who appeals to the CA from the judgment of the court confirming the arbitral award shall be
required by the appellate court to post counterbond executed in favor of the prevailing party equal to the amount of the
award.

FORMS AND CONTENTS OF AN APPEAL:

The notice of appeal shall indicate:

1. The parties to the appeal
2. The judgment or final order or part thereof appealed from,
3. State the material dates showing the timeliness of the appeal.
4. Copy of the notice of appeal shall be served on the adverse party. (S2 & 3 R40).

MATERIAL DATES:

1. The day notice of the judgment or final order was received.

2. The day when a motion for reconsideration or now trial, if any, was filed.
3. The day when notice of the denial of the motion for reconsideration or now trial was received.

RECORD ON APPEAL:

- A record on appeal shall be required only in special proceedings and in other cases of multiple or separate
appeals. (S3 R40).

- FORMS AND CONTENTS:See S6 R41. Note: Copy of the record on appeal shall be served on the adverse party.

CASE 1: P filed a case for collection of money against D before the MTC. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of
P. D wants to appeal on pure questions of law. Where should he take his appeal?
 D should take his appeal to the Regional Trial Court pursuant to Rule 40. The provision allowing direct appeal to
the Supreme Court on pure question/s of law applies only to a judgment of the RTC, not that of the MTC. (S2[c] R41).

CASE 2: D was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of the crime of estafa and sentenced to prision mayor. He wants to
appeal the judgment of conviction on a pure question of law. To what court should he take his appeal?

To the Court of Appeals. The provision allowing direct appeal to the Supreme Court on pure question/s of law
does not apply to a judgment of conviction in a criminal case. What governs here is Section 3 of Rule 122. (Tan v. People,
381 SCRA 74).

CASE 3: P filed with the MTC an application for original registration of a parcel of land over which there was no
controversy or opposition. After trial, the MT rendered a decision denying the application. If P wants to appeal the
MTC decision, to what court shall he take his appeal and what provisions govern his appeal?

P should take his appeal to the Court of Appeals in accordance with the provisions of R41. Under Section 34 of
B.P. Blg. 129 on the delegated jurisdiction of the MTC in cadastral and land registration cases, it is provided that the
decision of the MTC shall be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the RTC.

CASE 4: In an appeal from the MTC to the RTC under R40, may the RTC pass upon errors which were not assigned or
errors which are not closely related or dependent on an assigned error?

Yes. S8 R51 does not apply to appeal under R40 because of S7(c) R40 which provides that the RTC Shall decide the
case on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda as are filed.
(Adora v. Zamora, 30 May 2011, Bersamin, J.).

CASE 5: P filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Pinas City a complaint against D to recover possession of a
parcel of land with an assessed value of P600,000. D filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, The Met granted the motion to dismiss, P appealed the order of dismissal to the RTC.

a. Should the RTC affirm the MeTC's dismissal order?

b. Should the RTC try the case on the merits?
c. Assuming the RTC tries the case and renders a judgment in favor of P, what mode of appeal should be used by D in
case he will raise factual and legal questions?

a) Yes the RTC should affirm the MeTC's dismissal order since the MeTC clearly did not have subject-matter jurisdiction.

b) Yes the RTC should try the case on the merits as if the case was originally filed with it. Under S8 R40, if an appeal is
taken from an order of the lower court dismissing the case without a trial on the merits on the ground of lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction, the RTC while affirming the dismissal order, should, if it has jurisdiction thereover, proceed to try the
case on the merits as if the case was originally filed with it.

c) P should appeal to the CA by way of Rule 41. This is because the RTC tried the case in the exercise of its original rather,
than appellate jurisdiction. (S8 R40, first paragraph).

CASE 6:

P filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Las Piñas City a complaint against D to recover possession of a parcel of
land with an assessed value of P500,000. D filed an answer. The MeTC tried the case on the merits and rendered a
decision in favor of P. D appealed to the RTC.

a) Should the RTC dismiss the appeal?

b) Assume the RTC does not dismiss the appeal and proceeds to take cognizance thereof. The RTC decides the case in
favor of D. What mode of appeal should P use in case he wants to have the RTC decision reviewed on questions of law
and fact?

a) No the RTC should not dismiss the appeal.

Under S8 R40, if the case was tried on the merits by the lower court 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 in accordance
with S7 R40, without prejudice to the admission of amended pleadings and additional evidence in the interest of justice.

Here although the MTC did not have jurisdiction over the real action since the assessed value of the land exceeds
P400,000 the RTC should not dismiss the case since it has original jurisdiction over real actions where the assessed value
of the real property exceeds P400,000.
b) P should appeal by way of R42 to the Court of Appeals, since the RTC tried the case in the exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction.
CASE 7: Anabel filed a complaint against B for unlawful detainer before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Candaba,
Pampanga. After the issues had been joined, the MTC dismissed the complaint for lack jurisdiction after noting that
the action was one for accion publiciana.

Anabel appealed the dismissal to the RTC which affirmed it and accordingly dismissed her appeal. She elevates the
case to the Court of Appeals, which remands the case to the RTC. Is the appellate court correct? Explain. (10 Bar Q3)

Yes the appellate court is correct.

Under the Rules on Civil Procedure, where the MTC dismisses a case on the ground that it has no jurisdiction, the
plaintiff may appeal the order of dismissal to the RTC, which while affirming the dismissal order shall try the case on the
merits if it has jurisdiction thereof and as if the case were originally filed with it. (S8 R40).

Here the RTC had original jurisdiction over the accion publiciana case; hence it should have tried the same. Thus
the remand by the Court of Appeals was proper.

(Note: The examiner may reasonably presume that the accion publiciana relates to land/realty with an assessed value
exceeding P400,000; otherwise the MTC would not have dismissed the case).

CASE 8: Plaintiff filed a complaint for a sum of money against defendant with the MeTC-Makati, the total amount of
the demand, exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs, being
P3,000,000. In due time, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of the MeTC's lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter. After due hearing, the MeTC (1) ruled that the court indeed lacked jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the complaint; and (2) ordered that the case therefore should be forwarded to the proper
Regional Trial Court immediately.

Was the court's ruling concerning jurisdiction correct? Was the court's order to forward the case proper? Explain
briefly. (04 Bar Q46).

Yes, the court's ruling concerning jurisdiction was correct.

Under RA 11576, the RTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction where the total demand exceeds P2,000,000.00.
However the court's ruling to forward immediately the case to the proper Regional Trial Court was not correct.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, where a case is dismissed by the MTC on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the
remedy of the plaintiff is to appeal the order of dismissal to the RTC which if it has jurisdiction shall try the case on the
merits as if the case were originally filed with it. The Rules do not empower the MTC to forward the case to the proper
RTC. [S8 R40]

CASE 9: Plaintiff lessor filed with the MTC an unlawful detainer case against the lessee. The demand letter by the
plaintiff informed the lessor that he was unilaterally rescinding the lease and demanded that lessee vacate the
premises. The MTC dismissed the ejectment case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that accion publiciana was the proper
remedy. On appeal to the RTC, the latter reversed the MTC decision and held that the complaint sufficienty decis out a
case for unlawful detainer and this ma MTG had jurisdiction. Defendant appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed the RIG
decision, holding that assuming arguendo that the complaint was one for accion publiciana, the RIC was duty bound
not to dismiss the case pursuant to S8 R40.

Was the CA's invocation of S8 R40 proper?

No. Admittedly, S8 R40 authorizes the RTC to decide an appealed case on the merits -as if it were originally filed
before it- if it finds that it has original jurisdiction over the case. However, this is not the case here because the RTC
affirmed the MC's jurisdiction over the oridinal complaint. (Quesada v. Bonanza Restaurants. 14 November 2016, Brion,
J.).

APPLICABILITY:

u The other provisions of R41 applicable to appeals under R40 insofar as they are not inconsistent with or may
serve to supplement the provisions of R40. (S9 R40).
 RULE 41
APPEALS FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

I. JUDGEMENT OR ORDERS THAT MAY BE APPEALED:

An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular
matter therein when declared by the Rules of Court to be appealable.

Can a party file a notice of appeal from a judgment even if there is a pending motion for reconsideration by the
other party

Yes. 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. Each party has a different period within which to appeal
and since each party has a different period within which to appeal, the timely filing of a motion for reconsideration by
one party does not interrupt the other or another party's period of appeal. (Bernardo v. Soriano, 19 June 2019,Caguioa,
J.)

II. PARTICULAR MATTERS:

Examples:
a. Orders mentioned in Section 1, Rule 109 concerning appeals in special proceedings.
b. Order of partition under S2 R69.

III. Judgments or orders may not be appealed? (SPACE ID)

S - A judgment or final order for or against one or more of Several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims,
crossclaims and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom.
P - An order denying a Petition for relief or any similar relief from judgment.
A - An order disallowing or dismissing an Appeal.
C - An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by Consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud,
mistake or duress, or any other fraud, duress, ground vitiating consent.
E - An order of execution.
I - Interlocutory order.
D - An order Dismissing an action without prejudice.

IV. Final judgment rule:

The final judgment rule provides that an appeal may be taken only from a judgment or final order that
completely disposes of the case. (S1 R41).

EXCEPTION:
When a judgment or final order completely disposes of a particular matter in a case and the Rules declare such
judgment or final order to be appealable.

Examples: 1. Order of expropriation in an expropriation case (S4 R67) 2. Order of partition in a partition case (S2
R69. Both orders do not completely dispose of the case but nonetheless appealable as provided for by the Rules.

QUESTION: Is an order denying a petition for relief from judgment appealable? How about an order granting a petition
for relief?

No. (S1[a] R41). Under the 1964 Rules, a judgment denying relief under R38 was subject to appeal. This was
changed in the 1997 Rules. With more reason is an order granting a petition for relief not appealable since the same is
clearly an interlocutory order.

V. Final order versus an Interlocutory order.

u A final order is one that disposes of the subject matter in its entirety or terminates a particular proceeding or
action, leaving nothing else to be done but to enforce by execution what has been determined by the court,
while an interlocutory order is one which does not dispose of the case completely but leaves something to be
decided upon. (Silverio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 178933, 16 September 2006).
 u The rule is that a final order, unlike an interlocutory one, is appealable. The remedy of a party from an
interlocutory order is to assign it as an error in the appeal from the judgment or to file a special civil action for
certiorari if the order was issued without or excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of or excess of jurisdiction.

CASE I. Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant before the RTC. Prior to trial, the RTC dismissed the case
without prejudice for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. Twenty (20) days after the Plaintiff's notice of the order of
dismissal, he filed a motion for reconsideration, invoking meritorious grounds.

A. May the RTC entertain the motion for reconsideration and revive the case?
B. Would your answer be the same if the order was silent on whether it was with or without prejudice?

a) Yes. The remedy from an order dismissing a case without prejudice is not an appeal but a special civil action
under Rule 65. Hence the 15-day period to appeal or file a motion for reconsideration is not applicable to the order of
dismissal without prejudice. Thus the motion for reconsideration was timely filed.

b) No, in that case my answer would not be the same. The dismissal would be considered as one with prejudice
pursuant to S3 R17. In such a case the dismissal order is a final appealable order. The failure to file a motion for
reconsideration within 15 days from notice rendered such order final and unappealable.

CASE 2. The RTC ordered petitioner's Notice of Appeal expunged from the records "for lack of authority from, [its]
Board of Directors to initiate the appeal," pursuant to Section 12 of RA 9904. Petitioners filed a motion for
reconsideration of the order which was denied. The Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari to set aside the
RTC's order.

Was certiorari the proper remedy?

Yes. The order - expunging petitioner's Notice of Appeal from the records of the case - is effectively an order
disallowing or dismissing an appeal that precludes resort to an appeal. Hence, pursuant to S1 R41, petitioner's only
recourse is via the present certiorari action.

The order was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction. A board
resolution authorizing the representative to initiate the appeal is not required for the purpose of filing a notice of appeal.
This is because a notice of appeal is not a pleading, initiatory or otherwise, that, when required by the law or the rules,
must contain, among others, a verification and certification against forum shopping to be signed by the party or his/her
representative, and, in the case of a representative, proof of his/her authority to file the action, i.e., power of attorney or
secretary's certificate with copy of the board resolution. (United Interior Manggahan Homeowners Assoc. v. De Luna, 20
November 2017, Perlas-Bernabe, J.).

CASE III. What is the remedy of an aggrieved party from the issuance of a writ of possession in a petition for
extrajudicial foreclosure? Appeal or a special civil action for certiorari?

Appeal. A special civil action for certiorari could be availed of only if there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It has been repeatedly held in a number of cases that the remedy of
a party from the trial court's order granting the issuance of a writ of possession is to file a petition to set aside the sale
and cancel the writ of possession, and the aggrieved party may then appeal from the order denying or granting said
petition. When a writ of possession had already been issued as in this case, the proper remedy is an appeal and not a
petition for certiorari. To be sure, the trial court's order granting the writ of possession is final. The soundness of the
order granting the writ of possession is a matter of judgment, with respect to which the remedy of the party aggrieved is
ordinary appeal. As respondent availed of the wrong remedy, the appellate court erred in not dismissing outright the
petition for certiorari. (Producers Bank v. Excelsa Industries, Inc., 669 SCRA 470 [20121).

After the consolidation of title in the buyer's name for failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property, the writ
of possession becomes a matter of right. Its issuance to a purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale is merely a
ministerial function. The trial court has no discretion on this matter. Hence, any assertion of discretion in connection with
such issuance is misplaced, and a petition for certiorari is not a proper remedy. The order for the issuance of a writ of
possession being final, it is a proper subject for appeal. (BP/ v. Co, 9 November 2015, Jardeleza, J.).

CASE 4: In November 2003, First Marbella Condominium Association, Inc. (FMCA) filed with the RTC, through the office
of the clerk of court, a petition for extrajudicial foreclosure against Gatmaytan, a unit owner, for unpaid association
dues amounting to P3 million. The RTC executive judge issued an order dismissing the petition on the ground that
there was no mortgagee-mortgagor relationship between FMCA and Gatmaytan. FMCA filed a motion for
reconsideration which was denied.

FMCA elevated the matter to the SC by way of a petition for certiorari under R45. In its petition, FMCA raised a sole
question of law, that is, that FMCA may file the petition for extrajudicial foreclosure pursuant to Sec. 20 of the
Condominium Act which provides that unpaid assessments shall constitute a lien which may be enforced in the same
manner as judicial or extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage. Was the filing of the petition for review on
certiorari with the Supreme Court the proper remedy?

No. Only a judgment, final order or resolution rendered by a court in the exercise of its judicial functions relative
to an actual controversy is subject to an appeal to the SC by way of a Petition for Review on Certiorari. The order
dismissing the petition for extrajudicial foreclosure was issued by the RTC Executive Judge in the exercise of his
administrative function to supervise the ministerial duty of the Clerk of Court as Ex-Oficio Sheriff in the conduct of an
extrajudicial foreclosure sale; hence, said orders are not appealable under R45. Rather, the correct remedy is by petition
for mandamus. (First Marbella Condominium Association, Inc. v. Gatmaytan, 557 SCRA 155 [20081).

CASE 5:

P filed a case against D. D filed a motion for leave of court to file a third-party complaint against E. The court issued an
order disallowing the third-bi party complaint. May D appeal from the order?

Yes. Such an order would finally dispose of D's right to implead E.

VI. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INTERVENE:

An order denying a motion to intervene may be appealed. The appeal period is 15 days from notice of the order.
(Foster-Gallego v. Spouses Galang, G.R. No. 130228, 27 July 2004).

CASE 6: United Alloy filed with the RTC a case against United Coconut Planters Bank (UPB) for annulment and/or
reformation of contract. The complaint was dismissed by the RT on the ground of improper venue and forum-
shopping, United Alloy not having disclosed the pendency of another case involving the same issues between the
parties.

United Alloy filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals seeking to set aside the dismissal order.
The CA dismissed the petition for certiorari, ruling that the proper remedy that United Alloy should have availed of
was appeal.

Was appeal the proper remedy?

No. Except for cases falling under paragraphs (f), (h), or (i), the dismissal of an action based on the grounds
under S1 R16 is without prejudice and does not preclude the refiling of the same action. And under S1(g) R41, an order
dismissing an action without prejudice is not appealable. The proper remedy therefrom is a special civil action for
certiorari under Rule 65.

But, if the reason for the dismissal is based on paragraphs (f), (h), or (1) (i.e., res judicata, prescription,
extinguishment of the claim or demand, and unenforceability under the Statute of Frauds) the dismissal, under S5 R16, is
with prejudice and the remedy of the aggrieved party is to appeal the order granting the motion to dismiss. (United Alloy
Phils. V. UCPB, 23 November 2015, Del Castillo, J.).

VII. REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION OR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION:

A petition for certiorari under R65 since the dismissal is without prejudice. (S1 R41; Sadhwani v. Sadhwani, 14
Aug 2019, Caguioa, J.; Soller v. Singson, 3 February 2020, Reyes, J.).

CASE 7: P filed an unlawful detainer case against D with the MTC. P won and D appealed to the RTC. The RT dismissed
D's appeal because of D's failure to file his memorandum on time, invoking S7(b) R40. D's motion for reconsideration
was denied.

D filed with the CA a special civil action for certiorari to set aside the dismissal of his appeal P argued that certiorari
was not appropriate since an appeal was the proper remedy from the RTC order dismissing D's appeal. Was P's
argument correct?
 No. Under S1(c) R41, no appeal may be taken from an order disallowing or dismissing an appeal. In such a case,
the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action as provided in R65. Hence the special civil action for
certiorari was the proper remedy. (Sarmiento v. Zaratan, 5 February 2007).

CASE 8: Plaintiffs filed an action for partition and damages against the defendants. The defendants filed an answer
raising the affirmative defenses of res judicata, failure to state a cause of action, lack of verification and certification
against forum shopping, and failure to comply with a condition precedent (i.e., earnest efforts to arrive at a
compromise among family members). The RT dismissed the complaint based on the affirmative defenses cited by
defendants. The plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied. More than 15 days after they received the order
denying their motion for reconsideration, the plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari under R65 with the Court of
Appeals. The CA dismissed their petition on the ground that the remedy of the plaintiffs was appeal not certiorari.

Was the dismissal of the petition correct?

Yes. The RTC dismissed the complaint for (1) being barred by res judicata; (2) failure to state a cause of action; (3)
lack of verification/certification against forum shopping; and (4) failure to comply with a condition precedent (i.e.,
earnest efforts to arrive at a compromise among family members). Among the grounds cited, res judicata made the
dismissal one with prejudice.

The availability of appeal as a remedy to a dismissal with prejudice disqualifies the aggrieved party from availing
of certiorari proceedings, these two being mutually exclusive. It is already settled that the proper recourse from the trial
court's order of dismissal with prejudice is an ordinary appeal under R41. (Heirs of Malit v. Heirs of Malit, 28 April 2021,
Inting, J.).

VIII. Instances of dismissal without prejudice?

1. Dismissal pursuant to S5 R7 (rule on certification against forum shopping) unless the dismissal is due to willful and
deliberate forum-shopping.
2. Dismissal under S1 R17 (plaintiffs notice of dismissal).
3. Dismissal under S2 R17 (plaintiff's motion of dismissal).
4. Dismissal under S3 R17 (failure to prosecute) where provided for by the court in its order.
5. Dismissal under S5 R18 (failure to appear at the pretrial) where provided for by the court in its order.
6. Dismissal which the court expressly provides to be "without prejudice." (See Mijares v. Ranada, 12 April 2005).

CASE 9: P filed with the RTC a torts case against A, B, C, and D. The sheriff went to D's. residence and served the
summons and complaint on D's husband, since D was temporarily out of the country in Ireland. Subsequently D filed
an answer raising the affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. D argued that she was not properly served
with summons since she was temporarily out of the country and hence service of summons on her should conform to
S18 R14 which requires extraterritorial service. The RTC granted the affirmative defense and dismissed the case. P filed
a timely motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. The RTC granted the affirmative defense and dismissed
the case. P filed a timely motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. On the 60th day from notice of the
order denying his motion for reconsideration, P filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari under R65
contending that the dismissal order was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or excess of
jurisdiction. D filed a motion to dismiss the petition for certiorari contending that the proper remedy for P was an
appeal. Should the Court of Appeals dismiss the petition for certiorari?

The Court of Appeals should not dismiss the petition for certiorari.

Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, no appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order for or against one or
more of several parties while the main case is pending and that the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil
action under R65. (S1 [f] R41).

Here the final order was for D who was one of several defendants, and the main case was still pending.

Hence the petition for certiorari under R65 was a proper remedy. (Palma v. Galvez, 10 March 2010).

IX. MODES OF APPEAL:

1. Ordinary appeal.
The appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing
a notice of appeal with the RTC and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on appeal shall be required
except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or the Rules so require.

2. Petition for review under R42.

 The appeal to the CA in cases decided by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by verified
petition for review in accordance with R42.

3. Appeal by certiorari (Petition for review on certiorari) under R45.

In all cases where only questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the Supreme Court by
verified petition for review on certiorari in accordance with R45.

X. APPEAL A MATTER OF RIGHT:

Ordinary appeal is a matter of right. This means that the appellate court should review the case, and this duty is
compellable by mandamus.

Exception: In cases of an appeal from a several or separate judgment while the main case is pending, the appeal
must be made with leave of court. ( not a matter of right)

Appeals under R42, R43, and R45 are not a matter of right. Review is discretionary and the appellate court may
dismiss the petition outright if it finds that the questions raised are too unsubstantial to require consideration.

XI. MTC TO CA (Appeal):

The decision of the MTC in the exercise of its delegated jurisdiction in cadastral and land registration cases shall
be appealable in the same manner as decisions of the Regional Trial Courts. (Sec. 34, B.P. 129)

XII. Periods of ordinary appeals:

1. The appeal shall be taken within 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from.
2. Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within 30
days from notice of the judgment or final order.
3. In habeas corpus cases, appeal shall be taken within 48 hours from notice of the judgment or final order
appealed from.
4. In writ of amparo and writ of habeas data cases, the period of appeal shall be 5 working days from notice of the
adverse judgment or final order.

CASE 10: P received on 28 February 2006 a decision of the RTC in a sum of money case which dismissed his complaint
for lack of merit.
1. Up to when may P appeal the RTC decision?
2. Let us say that on 13 March 2006, P filed a motion for reconsideration.

On 5 April P received the order of the court denying his motion for reconsideration. Up to when may P appeal
the RTC decision?

P may appeal the RTC decision up to 15 March 2006. (Feb 28 + 15).

Up to 20 April 2006. (April 5 + 15 = April 20). The order denying the motion for reconsideration is a final period;
hence P has a fresh 15-day period within which to appeal. (Neypes v. CA, G.R. 141524, 14 September 2005, en banc).

CASE 11: P filed an action for reconveyance before the RIG against the D. D filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of
prescription. The court issued an order granting the motion and dismissing the case. P received a copy of the dismissal
order on 3 March 1998 and on the 15th day thereafter or on 18 March 98 filed a motion for reconsideration. The trial
court denied the motion for reconsideration in an order which was received by P on 22 July 98. On 27 July 98 P filed
with the RTC a notice of appeal.

The RTC denied the notice of appeal stating that P only had up to 23 July 98 within which to file the notice of appeal.
Did the trial court act correctly in refusing to give due course to the appeal of P?

No. Under S3 R41 P had 15 days from notice of the judgment or final order to appeal the RTC decision. The order
denying P's motion for reconsideration was a final order since it finally disposed of the issues in the case. Hence P had 15
days from 22 July 98 or up to 6 August 2004 (22 + 15 - 31 [days in July] = 6). (Neypes v. CA, G.R. 141524, 14 Sep 05, en
banc).