DIGEST, BIENVENIDA PANGILINAN, CRISENCIO PANGILINAN, and NARCISO LINTAG, Petitioners, v. FIDEL RAMOS, TARCILLA, RAMOS GADUQUE, GERONIMO RAMOS, LETICIA RAMOS, ESTERLITA RAMOS, JUANITA RAMOS, EMILIA DUCUT RAMOS, LEOCADIO RAMOS, MACARIO RAMOS and CATALINO, Respondents.

BIENVENIDA PANGILINAN, CRISENCIO PANGILINAN, and NARCISO LINTAG, Petitioners, v. FIDEL RAMOS, TARCILLA, RAMOS GADUQUE, GERONIMO RAMOS, LETICIA RAMOS, ESTERLITA RAMOS, JUANITA RAMOS, EMILIA DUCUT RAMOS, LEOCADIO RAMOS, MACARIO RAMOS and CATALINO, Respondents.

 Facts: 

        On May 11, 1964, spouses Tomas Luz and Felisa Quiambao executed and signed a Deed of Absolute Sale  by virtue of which for and in consideration of the sum of P1,000.00, they sold to Leocadio Ramos one (unregistered) residential lot, (known as Lot No. 506) with all the improvements thereon situated in barrio Sta. Rita, Municipality of Macabebe, Province of Pampanga,. 

         The spouses Leocadio Ramos and (plaintiff Emilia Ducut, pursuant to a Deed of Absolute Sale , sold the same parcel of land, hereinabove mentioned, to plaintiff Tarcilla Ramos, then single, for the sum of P800,00.was then issued in the name of Tarcilla Ramos. Tarcilla Ramos, then single lived at that time with her aunt Teodora Ramos in the house erected on the land subject of the deed of sale of October 28, 1964.

        On October 26, 1965, plaintiff Tarcilla Ramos, then single, signed and executed a Deed of Sale with Conventional Redemption  by virtue of which and for the sum of P1,000.00, she sold, transferred and conveyed by way of Sale with Conventional Redemption unto  Narciso Lintag and spouses Crisencio Pangilinan and Bienvenida Lintag, . . . . The same deed of sale with conventional redemption also provides that Tarcilla Ramos has the power to redeem said property within five (5) years from date of the document by paying and redeeming back to spouses Crisencio Pangilinan and Bienvenida Lintag and Narciso Lintag the same amount of P1,000.00, received by her without interest, otherwise the document shall be enforceable in the manner provided for by law. 

         "About four or five years after the disappearance of Tarcilla Ramos from Macabebe town, Juanita Ramos, her sister, tried to redeem the parcel of land in question but defendants informed her that Tarcilla Ramos should be the one to redeem the property. The brothers and sisters of Tarcilla Ramos then looked for the latter until they found her in Olongapo City in 1973 already married. Tarcilla Ramos-Gaduque then returned to Macabebe town and, together with her brothers and sisters, brought the matter to the PC of Pampanga Province but their complaint (was) dismissed after the defendants presented to the PC authorities a copy of the deed of sale with conventional redemption. . . . ."

         The  Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch VII rendered its decision, finding defendants therein, now the herein petitioners as the exclusive owners of the 834 sq. meters of land in Sta. Rita, Macabebe, Pampanga. On March 13, 1979, private respondents received the decision and filed their motion for reconsideration on April 10, 1979 . On July 17, 1979, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, Branch VII, denied private respondent’s motion for reconsideration. On August 7, 1979, private respondents filed their notice of appeal, appeal bond and record on appeal. 

        The Court of Appeals rendered its decision, declaring that as  contract of sale with right of repurchase and  Ordering plaintiff Tarcilla Ramos Gaduque to redeem the subject property from the defendants within thirty days from the finality of the decision of this Court and to pay to the defendants the amount of P11,361.08 as repurchase price of the property, failing in which, the ownership of the property shall be deemed to have been consolidated in favor of the defendants. 

        On April 14, 1986, petitioners filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration and such motion was denied. On April 25, 1986, petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration and on May 8, 1986, the respondent Court issued a minute resolution taking no action on the motion for reconsideration On May 27,1986, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but such motion was denied by the Court .

         Petitioners’ contention is that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over the case on the ground that private respondents failed to file their notice of appeal on time as provided for under Rule 41 of the New Rules of Court and that the petition should have been dismissed. Petitioners also alleged that the transaction executed between them and private respondent (Tarcilla Ramos Gaduque) is a deed of sale and not a sale with right to repurchase. 

        On the other hand, private respondents alleged that they filed their notice of appeal on time and that the transaction entered into between the parties is one of sale with conventional redemption.

 Issue: 

Whether or not the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over the case despite the fact that the notice of appeal was allegedly filed out of time 

Ruling: 

    The Court ruled that the petition is without merit. Under Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, to perfect an appeal the notice of appeal (the appeal bond and the record on appeal having been filed) must be served (together with a copy of the record on appeal) upon the adverse party and filed with the trial court within thirty days from notice of the order of judgment appealed from (Carbonel v. Court of Appeals, 147 SCRA 565 [1987]). 

    The evidence shows that when the plaintiffs (private respondents) received a copy of said order on March 13, 1979, they filed their motion for reconsideration on April 10, 1979. Said motion for reconsideration was denied on July 17, 1979 and even before receiving said order on August 7, 1979 plaintiffs already filed their notice of appeal, and a motion for extension to file record on appeal and paid the appeal bond .

     More importantly, it was confirmed in the order dated March 11, 1980 issued by Judge Lorenzo R. Mosqueda that the notice of appeal, the appeal bond and the amended record on appeal have been filed within the reglementary period . Hence, there appears to be no question that title Court of Appeals has acquired jurisdiction over the case. As this Court has consistently ruled, once the case is filed in court, the court acquires complete jurisdiction over the case (Marquez v. Alejo, 154 SCRA 302 [1987]).