G.R. No. L-37960 February 28, 1980
TEOFILA TORIBIO, petitioner, vs. ABDULWAHID BIDIN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City, and VICENTE COVARRUBIAS and CLARA MONTOJO, Spouses, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Teofila Toribio, authorized to litigate as a pauper, filed a complaint for recovery of possession of land against the private respondents. After trial, the Court of First Instance dismissed her complaint on April 25, 1973. She received the decision on May 3, 1973, and on May 4, 1973, she filed a “Motion to Appeal,” manifesting her intent to appeal to the Court of Appeals and praying to be allowed to appeal as a pauper under the Rules. She did not file a record on appeal at that time. The private respondents opposed the motion, arguing the appeal period had lapsed.
The respondent judge denied the motion on June 27, 1973, ruling it would be futile to grant the motion since no record on appeal was submitted within the reglementary period, making the decision final. The petitioner moved for reconsideration, citing Matute vs. Macadaeg and arguing that as a pauper litigant, the filing of her motion suspended the period and she was not required to file a record on appeal. Her motions for reconsideration were denied, prompting this petition for certiorari and mandamus to compel the allowance of her appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s “Motion to Appeal” for failure to file a record on appeal within the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic is clear: while a pauper litigant is exempt from filing an appeal bond and from submitting a printed record on appeal under Section 22, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, this exemption does not extend to the filing of a record on appeal itself. The rule requires the timely submission of a notice of appeal, appeal bond, and a record on appeal to perfect an appeal. For paupers, the record on appeal need not be printed; typewritten or mimeographed copies suffice, but it must still be filed within the 30-day reglementary period from notice of judgment.
The Court construed the petitioner’s “Motion to Appeal” as a valid notice of appeal, as it contained the necessary elements. However, her record on appeal was filed only on August 6, 1973, which was beyond the 30-day period that expired on June 2, 1973. Consequently, her appeal was not perfected on time. The cited case of Matute vs. Macadaeg was distinguished, as it involved the timeliness of an appeal bond, not a record on appeal. Furthermore, the Court examined the merits and found the trial court’s decision correct based on the facts: the petitioner’s father had abandoned his homestead application, and the land was subsequently awarded to another who sold it to the respondents. Any defect in that sale was a matter for the State, not a basis for the petitioner’s superior claim. Thus, allowing the appeal would serve no useful purpose.