Neypes v. CA (Asia) 3.
On May 16, Judge Rosales resolved the motions as follows:
September 14, 2005 | Corona, J. | Appeal from MTC to RTC (Rule 40)
PETITIONER: Domingo Neypes, Luz
RESPONDENTS: HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS OF BERNARDO DEL
MUNDO
SUMMARY: Petitioners filed an MR of the order denying their MTD. Relevant
dates to the petitioners:
 Feb 12, 1998 – order dismissing complaint
 Mar 3 – received order of dismissal;
 Mar 18,– filed MR;
 July 1 – trial court denied MR;
 July 22 – petitioners received order dismissing MR;
 July 27 –filed notice of appeal;
 Aug 3 – paid appeal fees
 July 31 - received order denying their notice of appeal because it was 8
days late according to the trial judge.
According to the trial court, petitioners filed their MR on the 15th day of the
regelementary period to appeal, leaving them with only 1 day to file the notice of
appeal. Petitioners argued that they were entitled to a fresh period of 15 days from
notice of receipt of final order. SC ruled in favor of the petitioners, final order
pertains to the order dismissing their MR. Petitioners filed their notice of appeal
five days from receipt of final order, well within the fresh appeal period of 15 days.
DOCTRINE: Fresh Period of 15 days from date of notice denying their motion
for reconsideration.
This fresh period rule applies to Rule 40 governing appeals from the Municipal
Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for review from the
Regional Trial Courts to the Court of Appeals; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-
judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals and Rule 45 governing appeals by
certiorari to the Supreme Court.
FACTS:
1. Petitioners filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land
and/or reconveyance and/or reversion with preliminary injunction
before the RTC of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro against the Bureau of Forest
Development (BFD), Bureau of Lands (BL), Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP) and the heirs of Bernardo del Mundo, namely, Fe, Corazon, Josefa,
Salvador and Carmen.
2. Various motiond were filed with the trial court, some of which are:
a. Motion to declare respondents heirs, the BL and BFD; and
b. Motion to dismiss filed by LBP
a. the petitioners motion to declare respondents BL and BFD in
default was granted for their failure to file an answer, but denied as
against the respondent heirs of del Mundo because the substituted
service of summons on them was improper;
b. The Land Banks motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action was
denied because there were hypothetical admissions and matters
that could be determined only after trial; and
c. The motion to dismiss filed by respondent heirs of del Mundo,
based on prescription, was also denied because there were factual
matters that could be determined only after trial.
4. February 12, 1998 – trial court dismissed petitioners complaint on the
ground that the action had already prescribed; petitioners received such on
March 3, 1998 and filed a motion for reconsideration 15 days after ( March
18, 1998).
5. July 1, 1998, Court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration which
petitioners received on July 22, 1998.
6. July 27, 1998 petitioners filed a notice of appeal and paid appeal feals on
August 3 1998 which was subsequently denied for filing 8 days late.
7. Petitioners now argue that the fresh period of 15 days should be counted
from the day that they received the order denying their motion for
reconsideration.
ISSUE:
1. What should be deemed as final order, which triggers the 15-day
regelementary period, the February 12, 1998 order dismissing the complaint
or the July 1, 1998 order dismissing the MR?
RULING: PETITION GRANTED.
RATIO: On the 15th day of the original appeal period (March 18, 1998), petitioners
did not file a notice of appeal but instead opted to file a motion for reconsideration.
SC court held that what constituted a final order was the denial of the motion for
reconsideration received on July 22, 1998, as it was what ended the issues raised
there. Under Rule 41, sec. 3, petitioners had 15 days from the notice of judgment or
final ordet to appeal to the trial court. The use of the disjunctive word “or” signifies
disassociation and independence of one thing from another.
To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair
opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period
of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the Regional Trial Court,
counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for
reconsideration.
Petitioners seasonably filed their notice of appeal within the fresh period of 15 days
counted from July 22.