Case Digest: ARTURO MUYALDE, et al. v. BONIFACIO REYES, JR.

ARTURO MUYALDE, et al. v. BONIFACIO REYES, JR.

560 SCRA 260 (2008) SECOND DIVISION

A commercial land was inherited by the sisters Fortunata Muyalde (Fortunata), Cresencia Reyes (Cresencia) and Felicidad Revilla (Felicidad) from their brother. In a “Compromise Agreement”, Cresencia agreed to give to her sister Fortuna’s six children one-third of a lot they owned in Pangasinan which was registered under the name of Spouses Cresencia and Bonifacio Reyes, Sr.

Arturo Muyalde, et al., heirs of Fortuna filed a complaint for Partition before the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan against Bonifacio Reyes. Subsequently, a complaint for “Ownership, Reformation of instrument, Partition and Delivery of Share” was also filed. Reyes filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of res judicata and failure to state a cause of action. The RTC brushed aside Reyes’ allegation of res judicata and dismissed the complaint.

Muyalde et al. filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court’s Order which was denied, accordingly. Muyalde et al. filed a Notice of Appeal before the RTC. While Reyes, on the other hand, also filed a Motion to Dismiss the Appeal, that is accompanied by two supplemental motions, citing, Muyalde et al.’s failure to pay the appellate docket fees within the reglementary period. The RTC gave due course to Muyalde et al.’s appeal and elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The CA strictly applied the rule on the payment of appellate docket fees and dismissed Muyalde et al.’s appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not CA erred in dismissing Muyalde et al.’s appeal

HELD:

In Neypes v. Court of Appeals, this Court, in the exercise of its “sole prerogative to amend, repeal, or even establish new rules for a more simplified and inexpensive process, and the speedy disposition of cases”.

Neypes v. Court of Appeals was decided on September 14, 2005, during the pendency of the case at bar before the Court of Appeals. It is settled that procedural laws and rules are considered as applicable to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage. Petitioners having received copy of the trial court’s order denying their motion for reconsideration on September 10, 2004, they had until September 25, 2004 to perfect their appeal. Since they paid the docket and other fees on September 20, 2004, they perfected their appeal within the reglementary period.