Fernando Fernando v. Santamaria, G.R. No. 160730, December 10, 2004 Facts:
On October 13, 2000, petitioner filed a complaint against respondents Willibaldo Willibaldo Uy (Uy), Chua ing !ian (Chua) and the latter"s agent, #aureana $ $ %orres (%orres)$ &he alleged that on three separate occasions, she obtained obtained loans from Chua in the total amount amount of '$' million$ million$ s security security for said loans, she eecuted eecuted a real estate estate mortgage mortgage o*er a lot co*ered by +ransfer Certificate of +itle (+C+) o$ 12-3.1, registered in her name and located at o$ 1//1, *angelista &t$, %angal, aati City$ City$ %efore the third loan could be released, she signed a deed of absolute sale con*eying con*eying the lot in fa*or of Chua in consideratio consideration n of the amount of 3 illion illion upon the assurance assurance of %orres %orres that the deed as a mere formality formality$$ On o*ember ., 1..', hoe*er, she learned that her title o*er the property as cancelled and that a ne one as issued on o*ember 4, 1..' in the the name of Chua$ +hereafter, Chua Chua offered to sell bac the property to petitioner petitioner for 10 million, hich the the latter accepted$ !oe*er, on 5ecember 6, 1..', petitioner came to no that Chua sold the sub7ect lot for 6 illion to Uy, to hom a ne transfer certificate of title as issued by the aati 8egister of 5eeds$ etitioner filed a complaint on the folloing causes of action9 (1) annulment of the deeds of absolute sale o*er the sub7ect lot in fa*or of Chua and Uy and the cancellation of the +C+ issued in the name of the latter: (2) reco*ery from %orres of the amount of 200,000$00 hich she allegedly ga*e as payment of the real property taes of the lot as ell as the amount of 120,0 120,000 00$00 $00 hich hich %orres %orres unlaf unlafull ully y deduct deducted ed from from her third third loan: loan: and (3) reco*e reco*ery ry of damage damagess again against st all respondents$ Chua filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioner"s action hich is founded on fraud is barred by prescription$ ;n their nser, Uy and %orres contended, among others, that petitioner"s cause of action, if any, has been ai*ed or abandoned$ etitioner filed a petition for certiorari ith the Court of ppeals contending that her complaint sees to hold all respondents solidarily solidarily liable for the fraudulent con*eyance con*eyance of her property$ &he claimed that the trial court cannot render se*eral 7udgment and separate separate the liability of %orres ith ith that of her co
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner as able to perfect an appeal ithin the re=uired period$
Held:
&ection -, 8ule 3/ of the 8e*ised 8ules of Ci*il rocedure pro*ides > &C$ -$ Several judgments$?;n an action against se*eral defendants, the court may, hen a se*eral 7udgment is proper, render 7udgment against one or more of them, lea*ing the action to proceed against the others$ se*eral 7udgment is proper hen the liability of each party is clearly separable and distinct from that of his co
120,000$00 allegedly recei*ed from petitioner for payment real estate taes of the lot, and the 200,000$00 purportedly deducted by %orres from petitioner"s third loan, are distinct from and independent of the =uestion of hether petitioner signed the deed of absolute sale through the misrepresentation of respondents$ Otherise stated, e*en if the trial court debun petitioner"s claim that respondents (including %orres) conni*ed in defrauding her to con*ey the property, the action against %orres for sum of money ill still subsist because it is based on issues hich has nothing to do ith the issue of fraud, i.e$, hether %orres recei*ed the amount of 120,000$00 and hether she has the obligation to pay the real estate taes of the mortgaged lot$ s to the amount of 200,000$00 the =uestion is the *alidity of the deduction of said amount from the third loan obtained by petitioner$ +he cause of action for collection of sum of money against %orres can thus proceed independently of the dismissal of the action to hold her solidarily liable ith Chua and Uy for the alleged fraudulent con*eyance of the lot (first, second and fourth causes of action of the complaint)$ s admitted by petitioner in her motion for reconsideration of the @uly 2-, 2001 Order, the issue against %orres is one for misappropriation of the amounts sought to be reco*ered$ +he doctrine laid don in Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, is not applicable to the instant case$ etitioner"s cause of action against %orres for collection of sum of money is clearly se*erable from her action against the other respondents$ +he rationale for re=uiring the filing of a record on appeal in cases here se*eral 7udgment is rendered is to enable the appellate court to decide the appeal ithout the original record hich should remain ith the court a quo pending disposal of the case ith respect to the other defendants$ Under &ection 2(a) in relation to &ection 3, of 8ule -1, petitioner is re=uired to file a record on appeal ithin thirty days from o*ember 1', 2001, her date of receipt of the October 2', 2001 order$ Considering that no record on appeal as filed, the Court of ppeals correctly sustained the order of the trial court dismissing her appeal for failure to perfect the same ithin the reglementary period$ fundamental precept is that the reglementary periods under the 8ules are to be strictly obser*ed for being considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays and an orderly discharge of 7udicial business$ +he strict compliance ith such periods has more than once been held to be imperati*e, particularly and most significantly in respect to the perfection of appeals$ Upon epiration of the period ithout an appeal ha*ing been perfected, the assailed order or decision becomes final and eecutory and the court loses all 7urisdiction o*er the case$ While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is e=ually true that e*ery case must be prosecuted in accordance ith the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of 7ustice$ ;n instances here e applied a liberal interpretation of the rules on filing a record on appeal, the parties although late, filed the re=uired record on appeal$ &uch, hoe*er, is not the case here because petitioner adamantly refused to file the re=uired record on appeal$ +he right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process$ ;t is merely a statutory pri*ilege, and may be eercised only in the manner and in accordance ith the pro*isions of la$ +he party ho sees to a*ail of the same must comply ith the re=uirements of the rules$ Aailing to do so, the right to appeal is lost$ Ainally, e*en if e brush aside the procedural flas in the instant case, the appeal is still dismissible because petitioner"s conduct is inconsistent ith her claim of fraud$ ;nstead of impugning the *alidity of the sale of the lot to Chua, petitioner accepted the latter"s offer to resell the property in the amount of 10 illion$ fter learning that Chua sold the same lot to Uy, she again offered the buy the lot for 13 illion and to shoulder the payment of all incidental epenses, thus, confirming that Uy has a *alid title o*er the property$ What is more, petitioner filed a criminal complaint for estafa ith the asay City rosecutor"s Office against respondents only on October /, 1..4, or almost 3 years from the time she learned of the alleged fraudulent transfers of her property$ ;n dismissing the complaint, the City rosecutor found petitioner to be intelligent to understand the import and conse=uences of signing the deed of sale and thus re7ected her claim that she as defrauded by respondents$ !e also ga*e no credence to her contention that %orres refused to release the 3rd loan unless she sign the deed of sale because said deed as in fact eecuted on October 2-, 1..', a much later date than the release of the 3 rd loan on @une 2., 1..'$B
