G.R. No. 253426 - Concurring Opinion




G.R. No. 253426, November 29, 2022, ♦ Decision, Gaerlan, [J] ♦ Concurring Opinion, Gesmundo, [CJ] ♦ Concurring Opinion, Lazaro-Javier, [J] ♦ Concurring Opinion, Singh, [J] EN BANC [ G.R. No. 253426. November 29, 2022 ] ANA MARIA C. MANGUERRA, PETITIONER, VS. MA. PATRICIA CONCEPCION E. MANGUERRA-ABERASTURI, JOSE MARIANO E. MANGUERRA, CHRISTINE MARTINA E. MANGUERRA, MAMERTO LUIS E. MANGUERRA, JUAN PAOLO E. MANGUERRA, AND GREGORIO CONSTANTINO E. MANGUERRA, RESPONDENTS. CONCURRING OPINION SINGH, J.: I concur with the esteemed ponencia's conclusion that respondents observed the proper procedure when they timely filed their notice of appeal and record on appeal.1 Thus, the Petition for Review on Certiorari should be denied. As expressed in my original position, the Rules of Court is clear as to the necessity of a record on appeal in special proceedings. Nevertheless, when the trial court has fully disposed of all matters in a case, there is no reason for the same to hold on to the records, or portions thereof, when an appeal is taken by a party. This is our ruling in Republic v. Nishina (Nishina)2. In Nishina, a record on appeal was no longer required, and a notice of appeal was declared sufficient. However, I respectfully submit this clarificatory concurring opinion to discuss two points. I express my agreement with the ponencia's pronouncement that Nishina is not applicable in this case. It reasoned that Nishina is inapplicable because the same involves a petition for cancellation of birth records and change of name, and not a matter covered by Section 1, Rule 109 of the Rules of Court, where multiple appeals are allowed.3 I clarify. To recall, in Nishina, the Office of the Solicitor General correctly argued that a record on appeal was not required because the case involved a petition for correction of entries in the Civil Registry, and with the grant of the petition, there was no matter left for adjudication by the trial court. The present case involves the distribution of the remaining assets in the decedent's estate, a special proceeding which is properly appealed by filing a notice of appeal and a record on appeal, in accordance with Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The inapplicability of Nishina stems from the fact that there was nothing left for the trial court to adjudicate after granting the petition for cancellation of birth record and change of surname in the civil registry. In Nishina, there was no matter left for the trial court to adjudicate because it had already granted the petition to cancel the birth record and change of surname. Thus, leaving parts of the record with the trial court serves no practical purpose, the case having been resolved in full. Nishina cannot be likened to the present case. As rightly pointed out by the ponencia, it cannot be said that the trial court has resolved all pending matters in the case, given the several remedies still available to the parties to secure their shares in the estate.4 The Rules of Court state that a record on appeal shall not be required except in special proceedings and other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or these Rules so require. As special proceedings generally require a record on appeal to perfect the same, it is not beyond reason for litigants to assume that they have 30 days to perfect their appeal.1aшphi1 In the present case, the respondents filed their Notice of Appeal with the Record on Appeal on October 21, 2015, or 29 days after their receipt of the order of the Regional Trial Court denying their motion for reconsideration. Thus, to apply the pronouncement in Nishina, which did not involve the same facts, would be tantamount to penalizing the party litigants for following the Rules of Court. Moreover, because of the clear wording of the rule, we should not leave it to the parties' discretion whether to comply with the rule or not. Based on the foregoing, I therefore vote to DENY the petition.1aшphi1 Footnotes 1 Ponencia, p. 14. 2 649 Phil. 206 (2010). 3 Ponencia, p. 13. 4 Id. at 14. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation