G.R. No. 215599 - Heirs of Francisco vs. Court of Appeals

The case involves a parcel of land (subject property) located at Lot No. 9, Cad. 124, Boalan, Zamboanga City, covering an area of twenty (20) hectares.
The petitioners are the Heirs of Geminiano Francisco, the Heirs of Marciano Francisco, the Heirs of Isidora Dagalea, the Heirs of Presentacion F. Braganza, Igmidio Francisco (represented by Ludgarda F. Limen), Donato Francisco (represented by Raquel Gazmin), and Perfecta F. Garcia (represented by Maria Luisa G. Gaspar).

On August 1, 1995, the petitioners filed a Complaint for Annulment of Title, Reconveyance of Real Property, and Damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Zamboanga City.
The complaint alleged that the late Jaime Francisco was the original occupant and owner of the subject property since 1918 until his death in 1957, and that his heirs continued occupying the property in an open, exclusive, adverse, and continuous manner for a total of seventy-seven (77) years.

Dr. Emiliano Torralba, in his Answer, contended that he was only a caretaker designated by Wellington Velasco and denied being the lawful representative of Velasco.
Wellington Velasco, in his Answer with a counterclaim, maintained that he was the true, lawful, and absolute owner in fee simple of the property, alleging that the petitioners’ possession was unlawful and that their claim had been abandoned or extinguished by a Deed of Quitclaim executed on July 8, 1968, with additional prescription issues following the reconveyance under the Land Registration Act.

The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint based on a Motion for Demurrer to Evidence filed by the respondents on July 28, 2009, with the RTC finding the evidence insufficient and holding that the proper remedy should have been an action for reversion.
The petitioners then appealed the dismissal with the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA rendered a Decision on August 19, 2013, affirming the dismissal by finding that the petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration (filed after the CA's decision) was untimely.
The petitioners alleged that they filed the Motion for Reconsideration on October 15, 2013, via courier service, asserting that they received the CA decision on September 30, 2013, and hence had until October 16, 2013 to file their motion.

The CA, however, determined that the Motion for Reconsideration was filed on December 6, 2013, far beyond the reglementary period.
Consequently, the CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration and directed the Division Clerk of Court to issue an Entry of Judgment, noting that the CA Decision had attained finality.
The petitioners then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, challenging the CA’s resolution, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the appellate court.
Subsequent procedural steps involved the respondents filing their Comment, a Manifestation, and a Motion to Deny the Petition, followed by the Court’s Resolution requiring a Reply from the petitioners, which was never filed.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by denying the petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration on the basis that it was untimely filed and by ordering the issuance of an Entry of Judgment thereafter.