Mariano Munivez and BCT Construction, LLC v. Arturo Alonso

NUMBER 13-25-00474-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________

MARIANO MUNIVEZ AND
BCT CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Appellants,

v.

ARTURO ALONSO, Appellee.
____________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE 357TH DISTRICT COURT
OF CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS
____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva

This cause is before the Court on its own motion. We must sua sponte consider

whether appellants failed to timely perfect their appeal to this Court, an issue which affects

our jurisdiction. See State ex rel. Best v. Harper, 562 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex. 2018); Allstate
Ins. Co. v. Barnet, 589 S.W.3d 313, 317 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2019, no pet.). We dismiss

the appeal as untimely.

I. BACKGROUND

Appellants attempted to perfect an appeal from a judgment entered in trial court

cause number 2023-DCL-00171. The judgment was signed on June 25, 2025 but was

not marked filed by the district clerk’s office until June 27, 2025. Appellants filed a motion

for new trial on July 18, 2025. Appellants then filed a notice of appeal on September 25,

2025.

On October 2, 2025, the Clerk of the Court notified appellants that it appeared the

appeal had not been timely perfected. On October 6, 2025, appellants filed with the trial

court a motion titled “Motion for TRCP 306a5 Relief to Adjust Post-Judgment Deadlines.”

See TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(4)–(5). On December 12, 2025, we abated this appeal and

remanded the cause to the trial court to determine whether relief under Texas Rule of

Civil Procedure 306a applies to appellants’ motion and, if so, to proceed under that rule

to identify the date on which appellants first learned of the subject judgment of this appeal.

On February 25, 2026, the trial court signed an order denying appellants’ relief to adjust

post-judgment deadlines.

On March 25, 2026, we reinstated the appeal, and the Clerk of the Court sent

appellants notice that the appeal had not been timely perfected. Appellants were further

notified that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not cured within ten days.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. On March 31, 2026, appellants filed an amended notice of

appeal; however, the amended notice of appeal did not cure the jurisdictional defect.

2
II. APPLICABLE LAW

Absent a timely filed notice of appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.

Baker v. Regency Nursing & Rehab. Ctrs., Inc., 534 S.W.3d 684, 684(Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi–Edinburg 2017, no pet.). Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days

after the judgment is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. If, within thirty days after the

judgment is signed, any party timely files a motion for new trial, the deadline to file a notice

of appeal is extended to ninety days after the date the judgment is signed. See id. R.

26.1(a); TEX. R. CIV. P. 296, 329b(a), (g).

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a(3) requires the clerk of the court to provide

notice regarding the entry of judgments or appealable orders. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(3).

The rule states, in relevant part:

When the final judgment or other appealable order is signed, the clerk of
the court must immediately send the judgment or order to the parties as
provided in Rule 21(f)(10). . . . Failure to comply with the provisions of this
rule shall not affect the periods mentioned in paragraph (1) of this rule,
except as provided in paragraph (4).

Id. Paragraph (1) provides that the deadline for filing post-judgment motions, such as a

motion for new trial or motion to reinstate a case, runs from the date the judgment is

signed and the clerk’s failure to provide notice does not impact such dates. See id. R.

306a(1).

III. ANALYSIS

The judgment subject to appellants’ attempted appeal was signed on June 25,

2025. Appellants’ motion for a new trial was timely because it was filed within thirty days

of the trial court’s judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1; TEX. R. CIV. P. 296, 329b(a), (g).

3
Therefore, appellants’ deadline to file its notice of appeal was extended to ninety days

after the date the judgment was signed—which in this case is Tuesday, September 23,

2025. Appellants did not file their notice of appeal until September 25, 2025. The trial

court has denied appellants’ request for adjustment of post-judgment deadlines under

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 306a(4)–(5). Accordingly,

appellants’ notice of appeal was not filed timely under the appellate rules. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.1. Furthermore, appellants have been provided notice of the defect and have

failed to correct it, so the case may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See id. R. 42.3(a);

Baker, 534 S.W.3d at 684.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Court, having examined and fully considered the appellants’ pleadings, the

record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the notice of appeal was untimely,

and we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

CLARISSA SILVA
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
30th day of April, 2026.

4