Title
Llantero vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-28421
Decision Date
Jul 20, 1981
Petitioner occupied land owned by respondent, claimed ownership, lost in trial and appeal. Motion for reconsideration dismissed due to incorrect docket number, binding client to counsel's negligence.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-28421)

Background of the Case

On January 7, 1959, J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. filed a complaint against Llantero, alleging unlawful occupation of their property. The petitioner countered that he purchased the land from Felicidad Campos, whose title traces back to Telesforo Deudor. The trial court ruled in favor of the corporation, ordering Llantero to remove his house and surrender possession of the land. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Procedural History

After receiving a copy of the appellate decision on May 30, 1967, Llantero filed a Motion for Reconsideration on June 14, 1967, but mistakenly cited the wrong docket number. Due to this error, the motion was not processed in the correct case, leading to an entry of judgment that became final. The Court of Appeals denied Llantero's subsequent motion to set aside this entry on November 11, 1967.

Legal Issues Raised

Llantero contended that his Motion for Reconsideration was timely and valid because the date of mailing should be considered the date of filing. He argued that the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the judgment final and in denying his request to set aside the entry of judgment.

Position of the Respondents

J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. asserted that Llantero's counsel was at fault for the erroneous docket number, which rendered the reconsideration motion ineffective. They argued that the motion was merely a delay tactic and that the Court of Appeals acted appropriately by remanding the case to the lower court for execution of the judgment, given that there were no grounds to set aside the entry of judgment.

Court's Analysis

The court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals, stating that while the date of mailing is typically considered as the date of filing, the erroneous docket number meant that the motion was legally nonex

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.