Case Summary (G.R. No. 141524)
Trial court rulings on motions
On May 16, 1997, RTC granted petitioners’ default motion as to the Bureau of Lands and Bureau of Forest Development for failure to answer, but denied it against the Del Mundo heirs due to improper substituted service. The Land Bank’s and the heirs’ motions to dismiss were both denied for factual issues requiring trial.
Dismissal and motion for reconsideration
On Feb 12, 1998, the RTC dismissed petitioners’ complaint as prescribed. After receiving the order on Mar 3, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on Mar 18. The RTC denied it on Jul 1; petitioners received the denial on Jul 22 and filed their notice of appeal on Jul 27, paying fees on Aug 3. The RTC refused to accept the appeal as late, and denied reconsideration on Sep 3.
Appeal timeline and Court of Appeals decision
Petitioners invoked Rule 65 remedies before the CA, arguing that the 15-day appeal period ran from Jul 22, 1998 (receipt of the final order denying reconsideration). On Sep 16, 1999, the CA dismissed their petition, holding that the final, appealable order was the Feb 12, 1998 dismissal. It deemed their notice of appeal filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period from Mar 3, 1998. A CA reconsideration on Jan 6, 2000 was also denied.
Issues on appeal period
Petitioners’ Rule 45 petition to the Supreme Court contended that:
- The “final order” under Rule 41, sec. 3 is the RTC’s Jul 1, 1998 denial of reconsideration.
- Their notice of appeal was timely filed within 15 days from receipt of that order (Jul 22–Jul 27).
- The CA erred in applying Denso, Inc. v. IAC, as that predated the 1997 Rules.
Statutory and jurisprudential rules on appeal period
Under BP 129, sec. 39 and Rule 41, sec. 3, appeals must be taken within 15 days from notice of judgment or final order. A “final order” disposes of the case on the merits or dismisses it. Jurisprudence in Quelnan v. VHF Philippines and Apuyan v. Haldeman holds that denial of a motion for reconsideration of dismissal constitutes the final order that finally disposes of issues.
Recognition of “fresh period” rule
The Court acknowledged that, although the original 15-day period is strictly jurisdictional, sound policy and prior practice under Rules 42–45 allow extensions or fresh appeal periods. To harmonize appeal periods, the Supreme Court promulgated a “fresh period” rule: when a party files a motion for new tr
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 141524)
Facts
- Petitioners filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land, reconveyance and/or reversion, with preliminary injunction, before RTC Branch 43, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro.
- Respondents included the Bureau of Forest Development, Bureau of Lands, Land Bank of the Philippines, and heirs of Bernardo del Mundo (Fe, Corazon, Josefa, Salvador, Carmen).
- Various motions were filed: petitioners sought to declare certain respondents in default; respondents moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action and based on prescription.
Trial Court Proceedings and Orders
- May 16, 1997 order:
- Granted petitioners’ default motion against Bureau of Lands and Bureau of Forest Development.
- Denied default motion as to Del Mundo heirs (improper substituted service).
- Denied Land Bank’s motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action.
- Denied heirs’ motion to dismiss based on prescription.
- February 12, 1998 order: dismissed petitioners’ complaint on ground of prescription.
- Petitioners received this order on March 3, 1998; filed motion for reconsideration on March 18, 1998.
- July 1, 1998 order: denied the motion for reconsideration; received by petitioners on July 22, 1998.
- July 27, 1998: petitioners filed notice of appeal; paid appeal fees August 3, 1998.
- August 4, 1998: trial court denied notice of appeal as eight days late; motion for reconsideration denied September 3, 1998.
Appellate Court Proceedings
- Petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition before the Court of Appeals, claiming timely filing of appeal from receipt of July 22, 1998 order.
- September 16, 1999 CA decision: dismissed petition.
- Held final order was February 12, 1998 dismissal; appeal period of 15 days ran from March 3, 1998.
- Late perfection of appeal is jurisdictional defect.
- CA denied motion for recons