Case Digest (G.R. No. 141524)
Facts:
The case is Domingo Neypes et al. v. Hon. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005, the Supreme Court En Banc, Corona, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Domingo Neypes, Luz Faustino, Rogelio Faustino, Lolito Victoriano, Jacob Obania and Domingo Cabacungan sued (in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro) the Bureau of Forest Development, the Bureau of Lands, the Land Bank of the Philippines (Land Bank) and the heirs of Bernardo del Mundo for annulment of judgment and titles of land and/or reconveyance and/or reversion, with a prayer for preliminary injunction.During the RTC proceedings the parties filed several motions: petitioners moved to declare certain respondents in default; the respondent heirs and Land Bank filed motions to dismiss. In an order dated May 16, 1997 the trial court granted petitioners’ motion to declare the BOL and BFD in default but denied it as to the del Mundo heirs because of improper substituted service; it denied Land Bank’s motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action and likewise denied the heirs’ motion to dismiss based on prescription for factual determinations that required trial.
On February 12, 1998 the trial court dismissed petitioners’ complaint on the ground of prescription. Petitioners received the order on March 3, 1998 and filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) on March 18, 1998. The trial court denied the MR by order of July 1, 1998, which petitioners’ counsel received on July 22, 1998. Petitioners then filed a notice of appeal on July 27, 1998 and paid appeal fees on August 3, 1998, but the court a quo denied the notice as filed out of time in an order dated August 4, 1998. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration of that denial was denied on September 3, 1998.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the RTC’s denial of their notice of appeal; the CA dismissed that petition on September 16, 1999, holding the 15-day appeal period ran from March 3, 1998 (receipt of the February 12 order). The CA denied reconsideration on January 6, 2000. Petitioners then filed this petition for revi...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing petitioners’ petition for certiorari and mandamus and in affirming the RTC’s denial of petitioners’ notice of appeal?
- Should the term “final order” in Rule 41, §3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure be understood to refer to the RTC’s February 12, 1998 dismissal order or to the July 1, 1998 order denying the motion for reconsideration?
- If the July 1, 1998 denial of the motion for reconsideration is the “final order,” was petitioners’ notice of appeal filed timely on July 27, 1998?
- Is the decision in Denso (Philippines), Inc. v. ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)