Digest: ENRIQUEZ vs ENRIQUEZ

Digest: ENRIQUEZ vs ENRIQUEZ
G.R. No. 139303, August 25, 2005

Facts: Maximo Enriquez died and was substituted by his heir (Carmen Agana, Igmidio Enriquez, Concepcion Enriquez, Cipriano Enriquez, Dionisio Enriquez, Maximo Enriquez, Cleofe Enriquez, Tomas Enriquez, Raymundo Enriquez and Nicolas Enriquez). The latter filed with the RTC of Zambales, a complaint for partitions against the petitioners (Cipriano Enriquez, et. al). The complaint involves a parcel of land located in Zambales.

The deceased alleged that he owns 10/18 undivided portion of the property, 9/18 by purchase and 1/18 by inheritance; and that petitioners have been residing in the premises without his knowledge and consent, thereby depriving him of his undivided share of the property.

Petitioners, in their answer, averred that Cipriano Enriquez, owns of the property, while the others are in possession of the other areas with his knowledge and consent.

On June 4, 1998, the RTC rendered a Decision ordering the petitioners to vacate the property and to surrender possession thereof to respondents. They filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC. It was approved on July 7, 1998. Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of petitioners for their failure to pay the appellate court docket fee. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the Appellate Court.

In their appeal, petitioners contends that the trial court must first send them a notice to pay the appellate court docket fee and other lawful fees within the period for taking an appeal. Hence, they waited for the notice for them to pay the appellate court docket fee. When they did not receive any, they paid the docket fee to the trial court.

Issue: 

Whether or not the provision under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure should be mandatory

Ruling: Prior to the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, payment of appellate court docket fee is not a prerequisite for the perfection of an appeal. However, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which took effect on July 1, 1997, now require that appellate docket and other lawful fees must be paid within the same period for taking an appeal. This is clear from the opening sentence of Section 4, Rule 41 of the same Rules that,  (W)ithin the period for taking an appeal, the appellant shall pay to the clerk of the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees.

The use of the word shall underscores the mandatory character of the Rule. The term shall is a word of command, and one which has always or which must be given a compulsory meaning, and it is generally imperative or mandatory.

Also under Rule 41 of the same Rules, an appeal to the Court of Appeals from a case decided by the RTC in the exercise of the latter’s original jurisdiction, shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from the notice of judgment or final order appealed from. Such appeal is made by filing a notice thereof with the court that rendered the judgment or final order and by serving a copy of that notice upon the adverse party. Furthermore, within this same period, appellant shall pay to the clerk of court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from, the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees.

The payment of docket fee within this period is mandatory for the perfection of appeal. Otherwise, the appellate court would not be able to act on the subject matter of the action, and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory. Court has consistently held that payment of docket fee within the prescribed period is mandatory for the perfection of an appeal. Without such payment, the appellate court does not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action and the decision sought to be appealed from becomes final and executory.

The payment of appellate docket fee is not a mere technicality of law or procedure but an essential requirement for the perfection of an appeal. Concomitant to a liberal interpretation of the rules of procedure should be an effort on the part of the party invoking liberality to adequately explain his failure to abide by the rules. In the present case, petitioners failed to establish any sufficient and satisfactory reason to warrant a relaxation of the mandatory rule on the payment of appellate court docket fee.

Note: This digest is one of the cases which was shared to us by one of our classmates in law school.