Siena Realty Corp v.

Gal-lang
G.R. Number – Date
J. xxx

Topic: “Prescribed” Jurisdiction – Retroactivity (RA7691, Sec. 7)

Doctrine: On retroactivity: SC resolutions (such as AMs) do not have to specify that it had retroactive
effect as it pertains to a procedural matter; On judicial notice: Courts should take judicial notice of official
acts of all departments (exec, legis, and jud) before rendering their decisions. There was no mention of
RA7691 in the case and in the case’s footnotes.

Petitioners: SIENA REALTY CORPORATION

Respondents: HON. LOLITA GAL-LANG, as Presiding Judge of the RTC of Manila, Branch 44; ANITA
CO NG in trust for ROCKEFELLER NG; and the COURT OF APPEALS, SPECIAL 13TH DIVISION,

Case Summary: Siena Realty Corp filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the CA’s ruling.
The CA used the original, not the amended, provision under ROC65(4). This led to the denial of Siena’s
petition with the CA. The CA ruled that the petition was filed out of the 60-day reglementary period for
such petition. The SC ruled that the CA should have used the amended provision. However, the petition
was still denied by the SC because the order of the RTC was actually final, not interlocutory. This means
that the reglementary period was not actually 60 days, but rather, it was 15 days.

Ken Note: Maikli lang yung case, pero mahaba yung digest kasi linagay ko sa footnotes yung whole
provision. You may opt to not read the footnotes. Hehe. Thanks.

Facts:
 Note: The case only talks about the procedure (appeal) of the case made in the lower courts. There
was no mention on what the actual case is about.
 [Not Important] On wrong mode of appeal1
 June 7, 2000: The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. This is the 60th day from
the petitioners’ receipt of the RTC’s order on March 23, 2000 denying the petitioners’ MFR.
 June 20, 2000: The CA dismissed the petition for being filed out of time. The petition should have
been filed only until May 29, 2000, which is nine (9) days earlier than the date they filed their
petition. The petitioners subsequently filed an MFR.
 August 1, 2000: While the MFR was pending, the SC issued A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC (Reglementary
Period to File Petitions for Certiorari and Petition for Review on Certiorari). This AM effectively
amended ROC65(4). This provision talks about the period remaining for filing a petition for
certiorari after the denial of a MFR or a Motion for New Trial (MFNT).
o Summary of the change: Originally, if a petitioner files a MFR or MFNT, the period of
60 days was interrupted. Once denied, the petitioner would have the remaining period to

1
The mode of appeal was a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. However, the petition attributes GAD on
the part of the CA. The SC said that what should have been filed was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. Based on
this, the petition must be denied due course. The SC also said that even if technicality was set aside, the petition still
fails.
 file the petition from the notice of the denial. As amended, there will be a new fresh 60
days counted from notice of the denial. Original2 and Amended3 provisions.
 September 13, 2000: The CA denied the petitioners’ MFR because it followed the original
provision instead of the amended one. Thus, the petitioners filed the instant case arguing that the
CA’s order was issued with GAD as it was made without taking prior judicial notice of the
amendment issued by the SC.

Issues + Held:
1. W/N the CA should have considered the amendment when it rendered its decision [YES]
 ROC129(1)4 provides that “A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of
evidence… the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the
Philippines.”
 Even if petitioner did not raise or allege the amendment in their motion for reconsideration before
it, the Court of Appeals should have taken mandatory judicial notice of the SC’s resolution in A.M.
Matter No. 00-02-03 SC.
 [IMPORTANT] The resolution did not have to specify that it had retroactive effect as it pertains
to a procedural matter. Contrary to private respondent’s allegation that the matter was no longer
pending and undetermined, the issue of whether the petition for certiorari was timely filed was still
pending reconsideration when the amendment took effect on September 1, 2000, hence, covered
by the its retroactive application.
 Thus, the amendment rules in favor of the petitioner. However, see issue #2.

2. W/N the petition should still be denied [YES]

2
Original ROC65(4): Where petition filed. — The petition may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of
the judgment, order, resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a
lower court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the
territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same
is in aid of its jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, and unless otherwise provided
by law or these Rules, the petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
If the petitioner had filed a motion for new trial or reconsideration after notice of said judgment, order or
resolution, the period herein fixed shall be interrupted. If the motion is denied, the aggrieved party may file the
petition within the remaining period, but which shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from
notice of such denial. No extension of time shall be granted except for the most compelling reason and in no case to
exceed fifteen (15) days. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
3
Amended ROC65(4) When and where petition filed. — The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days
from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed,
whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of the
said motion.
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower court or of a
corporation, board, officer or person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the territorial area as
defined by the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in the aid of its
appellate jurisdiction, or in the Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or
omissions of a quasi- judicial agency, unless otherwise provided by law or these rules, the petition shall be filed in
and cognizable only by the Court of Appeals.
No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted except for compelling reason and in no case exceeding
fifteen (15) days. (Emphasis and italics supplied)
4
ROC129(1): Judicial notice, when mandatory. — A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of
evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of
nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political
constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of
the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions. (Emphasis and italics
supplied)
  First, as mentioned, the petitioners used the wrong mode of appeal. It should have been a Rule 65
petition, not Rule 45.
 Second, the order of the trial court granting private respondent’s Motion to Dismiss the complaint
was a final, not interlocutory, order and as such, it was subject to appeal, not a petition for
certiorari. Thus, the reglementary period is actually just 15 days, and not 60 days.

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is, in light of the foregoing discussions, hereby DENIED.