Chipongian vs. Benitez-Lirio

An appeal from a final order or judgment in a special proceeding, such as the dismissal of a complaint-in-intervention, must be perfected by filing both a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order; the failure to file the required record on appeal is a jurisdictional defect that prevents the appellate court from acquiring jurisdiction and renders the appealed judgment final and executory.

The late Vicente Benitez was married to Isabel Chipongian, the petitioner's sister. The couple had no children, and Isabel predeceased Vicente. After Isabel's death, petitioner Nilo Chipongian and Vicente executed an extrajudicial settlement of Isabel's estate, where Chipongian waived his rights. However, Chipongian claims that Vicente simultaneously executed an affidavit clarifying that the waiver did not cover Isabel's paraphernal properties. Upon Vicente's death, his relatives (respondents) initiated intestate proceedings for his estate. Chipongian intervened in these proceedings, seeking to exclude the paraphernal properties of his sister, Isabel, from Vicente's estate based on the alleged affidavit.

• The petitioner, Nilo V. Chipongian, is the brother of the late Isabel Chipongian, who was married to the late Vicente Benitez. Isabel and Vicente had no children.
• After Isabel's death in 1982, petitioner and Vicente executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement for Isabel's estate, in which petitioner waived all his rights in favor of Vicente.
• Petitioner claims that on the same day, Vicente executed an affidavit affirming that the waiver did not extend to Isabel's paraphernal properties.
• Vicente Benitez died on November 13, 1989. His sister and nephew, the respondents, initiated intestate proceedings (Special Proceedings No. SP-797) for his estate.
• Petitioner filed a complaint-in-intervention in the said proceedings to exclude the paraphernal properties of Isabel from Vicente's estate, which was being administered by the respondents.
• On August 21, 1998, the RTC dismissed the complaint-in-intervention, noting that petitioner had waited over 12 years to assert his claim, which cast doubt on its validity and suggested laches.
• Petitioner filed a notice of appeal but failed to file a record on appeal. The RTC initially denied the appeal for being filed late, and upon reconsideration, denied it again for failure to pay docket fees on time.
• Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was not perfected on time.

• The Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing his petition for certiorari, as he should not be deprived of his right to appeal solely based on the late payment of appellate court docket fees.
• A record on appeal was not required because his intervention was not an independent proceeding but merely ancillary to the main intestate case, thus the rules on multiple appeals do not apply.

• The petition for review should be denied because the petitioner failed to perfect his appeal by not filing a record on appeal, as mandated by the Rules of Court for appeals in special proceedings.

• Procedural Issues:
• Whether the petitioner perfected his appeal from the RTC's order dismissing his complaint-in-intervention despite his failure to file a record on appeal.
• Substantive Issues:
• N/A

• Procedural:
• The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court clarified that the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint-in-intervention was a final order that completely disposed of his claim, making it appealable under Rule 109 of the Rules of Court. As the main case was a special proceeding (intestate settlement), any appeal from such a final order must comply with the rules for special proceedings. Rule 41, Section 2(a) explicitly requires the filing of a record on appeal in special proceedings. Because the petitioner only filed a notice of appeal and failed to file the mandatory record on appeal within the 30-day reglementary period, he failed to perfect his appeal. This failure is a jurisdictional defect that rendered the RTC's dismissal final and unappealable, and the appellate courts never acquired jurisdiction to review the case.
• Substantive:
• The Court did not rule on the substantive issue regarding the ownership of the paraphernal properties because the appeal was not properly perfected. The procedural failure rendered the RTC's judgment final and immutable.

• Perfection of Appeal in Special Proceedings — An appeal from a final order in a special proceeding is perfected by filing both a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within 30 days. The Court explained that the record on appeal is required due to the multipart nature of special proceedings, which allows the trial court to continue with the main case using the original records while the appeal on a specific, terminated matter proceeds. This requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional.
• Statutory Nature of the Right to Appeal — The right to appeal is not a natural or constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege. As such, it must be exercised strictly in accordance with the procedures and rules governing appeals. Failure to comply with these mandatory requirements results in the loss of the right to appeal, and the judgment becomes final and executory.

• "In like manner, the perfection of an appeal within the period laid down by law is mandatory and jurisdictional, because the failure to perfect the appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court causes the judgment or final order to become final as to preclude the appellate court from acquiring the jurisdiction to review the judgment or final order."

• Lebin v. Mirasol — Cited as the controlling precedent explaining the justification for requiring a record on appeal in special proceedings. The Court used this case to emphasize that the failure to file a record on appeal on time is a fatal, jurisdictional defect that renders the trial court's orders final and unappealable.
• Bank of America, NT & SA v. Gerochi, Jr. — Referenced by the Court of Appeals to support the general principle that the failure to perfect an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law renders the decision of the trial court final and executory.

• Rules of Court, Rule 109, Section 1 (Appeals in Special Proceedings) — This section enumerates the specific orders and judgments in special proceedings from which an appeal may be taken. The Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner's intervention constituted a final determination of his rights, falling under paragraphs (c) and (e) of this rule.
• Rules of Court, Rule 41, Section 2(a) (Modes of appeal) — This rule was cited as the basis for requiring a record on appeal in special proceedings. It explicitly states, "No record on appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require."
• Rules of Court, Rule 41, Section 3 (Period of ordinary appeal) — This provision establishes the 30-day period for filing both a notice of appeal and a record on appeal when the latter is required, which the petitioner failed to comply with.