Acosta v Plan

Facts:

Petitioners filed an accion publiciana against private respondent Magday at the CFI of Isabela. Believing that as pauper litigants they did not have to submit a record on appeal, they waited for the trial court to elevate the entire records of the case to CA (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, hence this petition. Under the Rules of Court then in force, a record on appeal was indeed required to be filed by a pauper appellant although it did not have to be printed.

Issue: Whether or not a  timely submission of a record on appeal is required  for the perfection of an appeal by a pauper litigant

NO.

Under B.P. Blg. 129, which has overtaken this case before it could be decided, a record on appeal is no longer required for the perfection of an appeal.  This law was given retroactive effect.

As held in People v Sumilang, being procedural in nature, those provisions may be applied retroactively for the benefit of petitioners, as appellants. 'Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent.'