LEBIN v. MIRASOL 7.
May 3, 1995: The RTC resolved the petition for relief, ruling that Lebin and
Sept. 7, 2011 | Bersamin, J. | Petition for Review on Certiorari |
PETITIONER: Spouses Elbe Lebin and Erlinda Lebin
RESPONDENT: Vilma S. Mirasol and RTC of Iloilo Branch XXVII
SUMMARY: In Special Proceedings involving the settlement of the estate of
the late L.J. Hodges, the RTC of Iloilo issued an order that a property of the
estate sold to Lebin be divided in 2 equal portions between Lebin and Mirasol.
Lebin filed a notice of appeal but Mirasol moved to dismiss on the ground of
tardiness of the record on appeal. RTC granted the motion to dismiss. Lebin
appealed directly to the Court, assailing the RTCs orders.
DOCTRINE: *(The Court did not pass upon allowance of a will in this case, or
question as to title to property should not be passed upon in testate or intestate
proceeding under which maam put this case. It was almost entirely about the
necessity of a record on appeal in a special proceeding, the absence of which
merits dismissal). A party aggrieved by judgment/final order issued in a special
proceeding should perfect an appeal by filing BOTH a notice of appeal AND a
record on appeal in the trial court WITHIN 30-days from notice of the
judgment/final order. (Additional requirements: See Ratio 5 and 6 ALSO). Here,
Lebin filed the record on appeal 43 days from the date they received the denial
of their MR/MNT.
FACTS:
1. January 1985: Lebin relayed their offer to the administrator of the Estate of L.J.
Hodges to purchase for P22,560 Lot 18 of an asset of the Estate situated in Iloilo
City. They made a deposit of P4,512.
2. August 1, 1985: The administrator sought judicial approval of the offer, stating that
Erlinda Lebin was the actual occupant of Lot 18.
3. The RTC commissioned one Atty. Tabares to conduct an ocular inspection to
ascertain if Lebin really was the only occupant. His report confirmed this.
4. August 28, 1985: The RTC granted the administrators motion for approval of the
offer.
5. Meanwhile, Vilma Mirasol also offered to purchase the lot on which her house
stood. Said lot was INITIALLY identified as Lot 4, but a later survey revealed that
her house was ACTUALLY standing on Lot 18.
a. Upon learning of the approval of Lebins offer to purchase Lot 18 on
November 11, 1985, Mirasol filed a petition for relief from the order
(on December 6, 1985 but it was dated August 28, 1985).
6. December 17, 1987: Pending resolution of the petition for relief, Lebin paid the administration of a trustee or guardian, a final determination in the lower court of the rights of
last installment for Lot 18, and moved for the execution of the deed of sale.
Mirasol should divide the parcel into 2 equal portions.
8. May 23, 1995: Lebin moved for reconsideration and/or new trial.
9. March 2, 1998: RTC denied the MR/MNT.
10. March 27, 1998: Lebin filed a notice of appeal in the RTC.
a. Allegedly, on May 5, 1998, Lebin also filed a record on appeal.
11. January 25, 1999: Lebin presented an ex parte motion to approve the record on
appeal.
12. June 15, 2000: Mirasol filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, insisiting that the
record on appeal had been filed late.
13. February 1, 2002: The RTC granted the motion to dismiss the appeal.
14. March 13, 2002: Lebin moved for reconsideration.
15. May 21, 2004: The RTC denied Lebins MR.
16. June 23, 2004: Hence, Lebin appeal via petition for review on certiorari to seek
the review and reversal of the orders of the RTC dated February 1, 2002 and
May 21, 2004.
ISSUE:
1. WON the RTC erred in dismissing Sps. Lebins appeal for their failure to
timely filed a record on appeal- NO.
2. WON the RTC committed reversible error in adjudging that Lot 18 be sold
to both Lebin and Mirasol in equal portions NO.
RULING: Petition DENIED.
RATIO:
1. Among the innovations introduced by BP 129, is the elimination of the record on
appeal in MOST cases, RETAINING the record on appeal ONLY for appeals in
special proceedings and in other cases in which the RoC allows multiple appeals.
2. A judgment or final order in special proceedings is appealed by record on appeal.
The reason for requiring a record on appeal instead of only a notice of appeal is the
multi-part nature of nearly all special proceedings, with each part susceptible of
being finally determined and terminated independently of the other parts. An appeal
by notice of appeal is a mode that envisions the ELEVATION of the original records
to the appellate court as to thereby OBSTRUCT the trial court in its further
proceedings regarding the OTHER PARTS of the case. IN CONTRAST, the record
on appeal enables the trial court to CONTINUE with the rest of the case because the
original records REMAIN with the trial court even as it affords to the appellate
court the full opportunity to review the appealed matter.
3. Sec. 1 of Rule 109 of the RoC underscores the multi-part nature of special
proceedings by enumerating the particular judgments and final orders already
subject of appeal by any interested party DESPITE other parts of the proceedings
being STILL untried or unresolved. HERE, Lebins appeal comes under item (e) 1 of
1 (e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of a deceased person, or the
the party appealing, except that no appeal shall be allowed from the appointment of a special
 said Section, due to the final order of May 3, 1995 (SEE Fact 7) being a final Mirasols portion as Lot 4 instead of Lot 18 (SEE Fact 5).
determination in the lower court of the rights of the party appealing. In order to 12. Under Rule 89 of the RoC, the RTC may authorize the sale, mortgage, or
elevate a part of the records sufficient for appellate review WITHOUT the RTC encumbrance of assets of the estate. The disposal of estate property required judicial
being deprived of the original records, the remedy was to file a record on appeal to approval before it could be executed. Implicit in the requirement for judicial
be approved by the RTC. approval is that the probate court can rescind/nullify the disposition of property that
4. A party aggrieved by judgment/final order issued in a special proceeding should was effected without its authority (it also includes the authority to nullify ITS
perfect an appeal by filing BOTH a notice of appeal AND a record on appeal in the approval of the sale of the property of the estate where the invalidation derived from
trial court WITHIN 30-days from notice of the judgment/final order. the falsity of the factual basis of the disposition, or from any other FACTUAL
5. Such party should ALSO serve a copy of the notice of appeal AND a record on MISTAKE (SEE Fact 5), or from the concealment of a material fact by a party.
appeal upon the adverse party within that period. ALSO, the appealing party shall
pay within the period to the clerk of the court that rendered the appealed judgment
or final order the full amount of the appellate court docket and other lawful fees.
6. A violation of the requirements for the timely perfection of an appeal by record on
appeal, or the non-payment of the full amount of the appellate court docket and
other lawful fees to the clerk of the trial court may be a ground for the dismissal of
the appeal.
7. Here, Lebin received the assailed May 3, 1995 order of the RTC (SEE Fact 7) on
May 15, 1995. Lebin filed an MR/MNT on May 24, 1995 (SEE Fact 8- this might
have been a typo, as in the Decisions statement of facts it states May 23 and not
May 24, but in the ratio it says May 24). On March 23, 1998, they were served with
the order dated March 2, 1998, denying their MR/MNT (SEE Fact 9). Although they
filed a notice of appeal on March 27, 1998, they submitted the record on appeal only
on May 5, 1998. Undoubtedly, they filed the record on appeal 43 days from March
23, 1998, the date they received the denial of their MR/MNT. They should have
filed the record on appeal within 30 days from their notice of judgment.
8. Sec. 13, Rule 141 of the RoC empowers the RTC as the trial court, motu proprio or
on motion, to dismiss the appeal for having been taken out of time or for non-
payment of the docket and other lawful fees within the reglementary period. For that
reason, the RTC rightly granted Mirasols motion to dismiss the record on appeal.
9. The right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege, and should be exercised only in the
manner prescribed by law. The statutory nature of the right to appeal requires the
one who avails of it to strictly comply with the statutes/rules that are considered
indispensable interdictions against needless delays/orderly discharge of judicial
business.
10. The RTC also did not err in allocating the parcel of land equally to the parties if
only to serve and enforce a standing policy in the settlement of the large estate of
the late L.J. Hodges to prefer actual occupants in the disposition of estate assets.
The policy was entirely within the power of the RTC to adopt and enforce as the
probate court.
11. It turned out that the report of Atty. Tabares about Lebin being the only occupants
was mistaken, because the house of Mirasol, who had meanwhile also offered to
purchase the portion where her house stood, happened to be within the same lot
subject of Lebins offer to purchase. The confusion arose from the misdescription of

administrator;