J. AMADO ARANETA v. ALFONSO DORONILA, GR No. L-34882, 1976-08-24

TOPIC: Art. 4

Changes in substantive law may not be applied retroactively, especially when prejudice will result to the party that has followed the earlier law.

Data showing that appeal perfected in time – material data rule.

FACTS:

1. Araneta et al. filed petition for certiorari and prohibition against Court of Appeals for grave abuse of discretion for failing to dismiss the appeal of Doronila et al from the appeal to CFI Rizal's decision in a civil action between the two parties despite the appeal not being made on time.

2. Another petition for certiorari and prohibition against the same CFI Rizal for issuing a writ of execution of the decision and declaring finality of the previous decision

3. 28 April 1971: CFI Rizal rendered a decision on the civil case wherein Araneta granted Doronila and Doronila Resources Development Corporation an exclusive option to be two big parcels of land in San Mateo, Rizal which consist an aggregate area of 21, 549, 183 square meters at a total price of P13,071,215.00 and for the damages. The decision was as follows:

- Doronila is ordered to clear the cadastral survey covered in the parcels of liens and encumbrances and squatters and to pay Araneta the sum of P63,448.00 as actual damages and P7,242,250.00 for damages arising from unrealized profits, with legal interest, from the filing of the complaint. 

TIMELINE:

28 April 1971 - CFI Rizal rendered a decision in favor of Araneta

14 May 1971 - Doronila received a copy of the decision

31 May 1971 - Doronila filed a notice of appeal and an appeal bond of P120.

However, due to some deficiencies, the original record on appeal was ordered amended.

22 June 1971, the amended record on appeal was filed by Doronila.

19 July 1971 - the CFI Rizal judge approved the amended record on appeal.

4. Thus, the CFI Rizal judge inferred that the approval was perfected on time since the Araneta did not object to the record on appeal.

5. 09 March 1972: Araneta filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the 24 February 1972 decision denying their motion to dismiss. The motion for reconsideration was also denied. 

6. Araneta cited similar precedents showing that Doronila's appeal should have been dismissed since the date of the original record cannot be seen in the amended record. Thus, the amended record fails to show on its face that their appeal was perfected within the period fixed by the

rules, pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 50. 

ISSUE:

W/N the jurisprudence on Berkenkotter in 1873 and Pimentel in 1975 can serve as a basis for ruling in the present case whose appeal was perfected in 1971.

RULING:

NO. Berkenkotter and Pimentel were promulgated only on September 28, 1973 and June 25, 1975 respectively, hence, it can only operate prospectively and will not affect previous cases appealed before that date, relying on the old doctrine. 

'Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines decrees that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution form part of this jurisdiction's legal system.  These decisions, although in themselves not laws, constitute evidence... of what the laws mean.  The application or interpretation placed by the Court upon a law is part of the law as of the date of the enactment of the said law since the Court's application or interpretation merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that... construed law purports to carry into effect.

Therefore, Berkenkotter and Pimentel cannot retroactively affect the present case, whose appeal was perfected on June 21, 1971.

Also, s (Sec. 7 of Rule 41), unless the court fixes a period for the filing of the amended record on appeal, the same may be filed within ten (10) days from receipt of the order for amendment. We take judicial notice of the fact that ordinarily, appellants are given not less than said period of ten days within which to comply with an order to amend the record on appeal and that it would take at least one week before the court can consider and rule on the objection of appellee plus another one week to issue and serve the corresponding order. So, assuming that the Doronilas filed their original record on appeal as early as May 31, 1971, which is already rather extraordinary, since generally, the record on appeal is filed some days later, they still had a total of 24 days from May 31 to make a timely appeal by filing their amended record on appeal. In other words, their reglementary period would have expired on June 24, 1971. And since the Doronila amended record on appeal was filed on June 22, 1971, it is almost Beyond question that their appeal was perfected on time.