Mejillano v Lucillo

R40 S7(b)
Facts:

Faustino
Loteria
(Patriarch)
First Marriage
with Ciriaca
Luciada
Tranquilino

Antonia

Second
Marriage with
Francisca
Monreal
Julita

Felix

Cipriano
Hospicio

1. Faustino begot six children in total, three from the first marriage and another three from
the second marriage (Refer to chart)
2. Faustino died in 1931, leaving two parcels of land, Lot 1 (6,628sqm) and Lot 2
(4,904sqm).
3. In 1959, Tranquilino and Antonia executed an extrajudicial settlement dividing Lot 1
equally between them, and Antonia ceded her share to Tranquiliano. In 1978,
Tranquiliano sold it to a certain Lorente, later modified to include Lot 2. (from the text,
it appears that Cipriano is already dead)
4. Conflict arose when Faustinos children from the second marriage, Felix and Hospicio
claimed that Lot 2 is their inheritance, hence, Lorente could not have validly bought it.
5. This led Lorente to file an action for Recovery of Possession with the RTC. In 1985,
RTC ruled IFO of Felix and Hospicio, declaring them to be co-owners of Lot 2. They are
entitled to the possession of the property subject to the final determination of their
rights as heirs.
6. Afterwards, through a series of sales, the Heirs of Hospicio sold to herein Respondent
Lucillo the entire Lot 2.

7. When Lucillo was about to enter the property, he discovered that it was occupied by
herein Petitioner Mejillano. Refusing to vacate, Lucillo filed an action to recover
possession before the MTC.
a. In Mejillanos defense, he said he bought it from the heirs of Lorente
b. MTC ruled IFO of Lucillo
8. Mejillano appealed to the RTC, but was dismissed because he failed to file an appeal
memorandum as required by R40 S7(b).
a. The following month, through a new counsel, Mejillano filed MR, and attached
the required Memorandum thereto. He claims that the failure to file the required
appeal memorandum was due to:
i. Ignorance of his previous counsel
ii. Untimely demise of his previous counsel
iii. Mistaken belief that what was required in an appeal was merely a notice
of appeal and nothing more.
b. RTC denied MR.
i. Cannot accept ignorance because the records show that Mejillano
personally made the Answer to the Complaint
ii. Other reasons (Mejillano raised the issue that he could not afford the new
lawyer, but RTC said he could have gotten a PAO lawyer)
9. CA also denied his petition. Hence, this appeal.
Issue: W/N the case should be dismissed for failure to file an appeal memorandum
Held: Yes.
Ratio:
R40 S7(b) says that it is the duty of the appellant to submit a memorandum which briefly
discusses the errors of the lower court. Failure to do so is a ground for the dismissal of the
appeal. This rule is enforced in Enriquez v CA where it was said that the rule has an express
mandate upon the appellant, and it is not a matter of discretion on his part. Failure to do so will
compel the RTC to dismiss the appeal.
In this case, Mejillano anchors his reasons in failing to file the required appeal memorandum:
1. Due to the untimely death of his previous counsel
2. That even though he received notice to file the memorandum, he did not understand the
tenor of such notice because he was not a lawyer.
3. Insists on a liberal application of the rule
SC disagrees. The procedural rules do not exist for the convenience of the litigants. While the
rules may be liberally construed, the provisions on reglamentary periods are strictly applied. In
this case, the root cause of the dismissal was his belated filing of the required memorandum
only after his appeal was dismissed. The reglamentary periods prevents needless delays and
aids in a speedy disposition of a case.

Moreover, the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process, but merely a
statutory privilege afforded a litigant in case there is grave abuse of discretion on part of the
lower court. Being merely a statutory privilege, the requisites must be strictly complied with.