ACOSTA v.

PLAN
G.R. NO. L-44466 January 30, 1989

Facts:
The plaintiff Acosta filed an accion publiciana against the respondent Magday. The complaint
was amended on August 25, 1971, to implead the Department of Agriculture and Natural
Resources and the Bureau of Lands as additional defendants.
On October 3, 1975, the court rendered its judgment, dismissing the complaint with cost against
the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs filled a motion for reconsideration of the decision, which was denied by the
respondent judge on December 12, 1975.
On December 22, 1975, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal as paupers and filed a
notice of appeal on December 23, 1975.
On January 19, 1976, the plaintiffs’ motion to appeal as paupers was granted by the trial court.
Believing that as pauper litigants they did not have to submit a record on appeal and thus waited
for the trial court to elevate the entire records to the court of appeals as provided in Section 16,
rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
On June 16, 1976, respondent Judge dismissed the appeal for failure to file a record on appeal. A
motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of order was filed by the appellants on June 26, 1976.
On August 10, 1976, they mail their record on appeal to the court.
On August 23, 1976, their motion for reconsideration was denied by the lower court.
Under the rules of Court, a record of appeal is required to be filed by the pauper appellant
although it did not have to be printed.
However, under the B.P. Blg. 129, which overtaken this case before it could be decided, a record
on appeal is no longer required for the perfection of the appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not B.P. Blg. 129 should be given retroactive effect.
Rulings
YES, B.P. Blg 129 should be given retroactive effect. The reorganization having been declared to
have been completed, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 is now in full force and effect. A record on
appeal is no longer necessary for taking an appeal.
This new rule was given retroactive effect in Alday v. Camilon. The same provisions appear in
Section 18 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines where it is ruled that being procedural in nature,
those provisions may be applied retroactively for the benefit of the petitioners, as appellants.
On October 3, 1976, the trial court is hereby ordered to forward the entire records of Civil Case
No. 1201 to the Court of Appeals for the determination and disposition of the petitioners’ appeal
on merits.