Neypes v.
CA
G.R. No. 141524 (September 14,
2005)
SC reversed CA's dismissal on land
title annulment, clarifying "final
order" and appeal rules.
Facts:
Petitioners Domingo Neypes, Luz
Faustino, Rogelio Faustino, Lolito
Victoriano, Jacob Obania, and
Domingo Cabacungan initiated an
action for annulment of judgment
and titles of land, as well as
reconveyance and/or reversion,
against the Bureau of Forest
Development, Bureau of Lands,
Land Bank of the Philippines, and
the heirs of Bernardo del Mundo.
The case was filed in the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43, of
Roxas, Oriental Mindoro.
During the proceedings, various
motions were filed by both parties.
The petitioners sought to declare
the Bureau of Lands and Bureau of
Forest Development in default due
to their failure to file an answer,
which was granted by the trial
court. However, the motion against
the heirs of del Mundo was denied
due to improper service of
summons. The Land Bank's motion
to dismiss for lack of cause of
action was denied, as was the
motion to dismiss filed by the heirs
of del Mundo based on the ground
of prescription.
On February 12, 1998, the trial
court dismissed the petitioners'
complaint on the basis of
prescription. The petitioners
received the order of dismissal on
March 3, 1998, and filed a motion
for reconsideration on March 18,
1998. This motion was denied on
July 1, 1998, and the petitioners
received this order on July 22,
1998. They filed a notice of appeal
on July 27, 1998, which was later
denied by the trial court as being
filed late.
The petitioners then filed a petition
for certiorari and mandamus with
the Court of Appeals, arguing that
their notice of appeal was timely
filed. The Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition, ruling that
the 15-day period to appeal should
have started from the February 12,
1998 order, which was deemed the
final order.
Legal Issues:
1. Whether the Court of Appeals
erred in dismissing the
petitioners' appeal as being
filed out of time.
2. Whether the final order for the
purpose of determining the
appeal period was the
February 12, 1998 order or the
July 1, 1998 order denying the
motion for reconsideration.
Arguments:
Petitioners' Arguments:
The 15-day reglementary
period to appeal should be
counted from the receipt
of the July 1, 1998 order,
which denied their motion
for reconsideration, as this
was the final order that
disposed of the issues.
They contended that they
filed their notice of appeal
within the 15-day period
from the receipt of the final
order.
Respondents' Arguments:
The respondents argued
that the appeal period
should have started from
the February 12, 1998
order, which dismissed the
complaint, making the
petitioners' appeal
untimely.
They maintained that the
petitioners had only one
day left to file their notice
of appeal after the denial
of their motion for
reconsideration.
Court's Decision and Legal
Reasoning:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of
the petitioners, stating that the
order dated July 1, 1998, which
denied the motion for
reconsideration, constituted the
final order for the purpose of the
appeal period. The Court
emphasized that the right to appeal
is a statutory privilege that must be
exercised in accordance with the
provisions of law.
The Court established that the
appeal period is interrupted by the
filing of a motion for
reconsideration, and upon the
denial of such a motion, a fresh
period of 15 days to file a notice of
appeal is granted. The Court cited
previous cases (Quelnan v. VHF
Philippines, Inc. and Apuyan v.
Haldeman) that supported the view
that the denial of a motion for
reconsideration is the final order
that triggers the appeal period.
The Court concluded that the
petitioners filed their notice of
appeal on July 27, 1998, which was
within the fresh 15-day period from
the receipt of the July 1, 1998
order. Therefore, the Court of
Appeals' dismissal of the
petitioners' appeal was reversed,
and the case was remanded for
further proceedings.
Significant Legal Principles
Established:
1. The right to appeal is a
statutory privilege and must be
exercised in accordance with
the law.
2. The period to appeal is
interrupted by the filing of a
motion for reconsideration, and
a fresh 15-day period is
granted from the receipt of the
order denying such motion.
3. The final order for the purpose
of determining the appeal
period is the order that
disposes of the issues raised,
which may be the order
denying a motion for
reconsideration rather than the
initial order dismissing the
complaint.
Signal.ph - Philippine Legal Cases and
Laws
