363 Phil. 316
PURISIMA, J.:
"Section 33. Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall exercise:On March 13, 1995, the City Trial Court of origin dismissed the case, as prayed for, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction,[2] ratiocinating, thus:
"(3) Exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil actions which involve title to, or possession of, real property, or any interest therein where the assessed value of the property or interest therein does not exceed Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) or, in civil actions in Metro Manila, where such assessed value does not exceed Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) exclusive of interest, damages of whatever kind, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs: Provided, That in cases of land not declared for taxation purposes, the value of such property shall be determined by the assessed value of the adjacent lots."
"The record of the instant case shows that the plaintiff acquired the land in issue on July 18, 1983 from Sinforiano Torralba as evidenced by a machine copy of the deed of absolute sale denominated as Doc. No. 420; Page No. 84; Book No. XXXVI and Series of 1983 and acknowledged before a Norary (sic) Public. The plaintiff was already the owner of the land in question when the previous owner filed a complaint for Unlawful Detainer against defendant's predecessor-in-interest on August 4, 1993. The real party-in-interest is therefore the herein plaintiff and not Sinforiano Torralba. This fact was concealed or withheld by Sinforiano Torralba to the Court.On August 24, 1995, Aala appealed to the Regional Trial Court, the appeal docketed as Civil Case No. 4326 before Branch 2, Regional Trial Court in Libertad, Butuan City.
Thusly, as early as July 18, 1983, plaintiff's cause of action for unlawful detainer against the defendant's predecessor-in-interest had already accrued. Since the instant complaint was filed more than eleven (11) years from accrual of the cause of action or from the date of defendant's predecessor-in-interest began to withhold unlawful the possession of the realty in the case at hand, it is the Regional Trial Court who has jurisdiction over the present case." (Bernabe v. Dayrit, 125 SCRA 423)
"A reading of the Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review as well as Annex I of the petition shows that petitioner received a copy of the questioned resolution dated May 13, 1996 on May 17, 1996. Ten (10) days thereafter, or on May 27,1996, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by public respondent in its order dated July 22,1996, copy of which was received by petitioner on July 30, 1996. It also appears that the instant "Petition for Review on Certiorari" (should be Petition for Review) was sent by registered mail on August 19, 1996 or on the 20th day from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration. Clearly, therefore the petition has been filed beyond the reglementary period. xxx "The aforequoted Resolution of September 27, 1996, however, was received by petitioner on October 8, 1996. Consequently, the respondent court denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration filed on October 25, 1996, on the ground of late filing, the same having been filed two (2) days after the expiration of the 15-day reglementary period.
"THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR BEING FILED BEYOND THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS FILED WITHIN THE EXTENDED PERIOD.In his Comment,[10] private respondent Francisco Aala pointed out that the petition lacks the proof of service required by Revised Circular No. 1-88, which is a ground for outright dismissal.[11] He reiterated that the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 41758 had already become final and executory when the motion for extension to file a petition for review was filed.
THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AS TWO (2) DAYS LATE AND IN NOT RESOLVING IT ON ITS MERITS."[9]
"The perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only mandatory, but jurisdictional, and the failure to perfect that appeal renders the judgment of the court final and executory. xxxWHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Resolution dated September 27, 1996, dismissing the petition for review, and the Resolution, dated December 2, 1996, denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration are both AFFIRMED.xxx xxx xxx
The case at bench, given its own settings, cannot come close to those extraordinary circumstance that have indeed justified a deviation from an otherwise stringent rule. Let it not be overlooked that the timeliness of an appeal is a jurisdictional caveat that not even this Court can trifle with."
Rule 41 , Section 2. Modes of Appeal._[7] Composed of Justices Jorge S. Imperial, Corona Ibay Somera and Celia Lipana - Reyes.
xxx
(b). Petition for Review. The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction shall be by petition for review in accordance with Rule 42.
Rule 42. Petition for Review from the Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals
Section 1. How appeal taken; time for filing.- A party desiring to appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction may file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals, paying at the same time to the clerk of said court the corresponding docket and other lawful fees, depositing the amount of P500.00 for costs, and furnishing the Regional Trial Court and the adverse party with a copy of the petition. The petition shall be filed and served within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision sought to be reviewed or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new trial or reconsideration filed in due time after judgment. Upon proper motion and the payment of full amount of the docket and other lawful fees and the deposit for cost before the expiration of the reglementary period, the Court of Appeals may grant an additional period of fifteen (15) days only within which to file the petition for review. No further extension shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen days (15) days. (n)