Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    G.R. No. 141524 Neypes Vs CA Facts

    Uploaded by

    Jesse Razon
    The petitioners filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land before the RTC which was subsequently dismissed. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The petitioners then filed a notice of appeal, however the RTC denied the notice as untimely. The issues were whether the order dismissing the complaint or the order denying the motion for reconsideration triggered the start of the 15-day period to appeal, and whether the notice of appeal was timely filed. The Supreme Court held that the order denying the motion for reconsideration was the final order appealed from, and that the petitioners filed their notice of appeal within 15 days of receiving notice of the denial, making it timely.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    G.R. No. 141524 Neypes Vs CA Facts

    Uploaded by

    Jesse Razon
    36 views2 pages
    The petitioners filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land before the RTC which was subsequently dismissed. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The petitioners then filed a notice of appeal, however the RTC denied the notice as untimely. The issues were whether the order dismissing the complaint or the order denying the motion for reconsideration triggered the start of the 15-day period to appeal, and whether the notice of appeal was timely filed. The Supreme Court held that the order denying the motion for reconsideration was the final order appealed from, and that the petitioners filed their notice of appeal within 15 days of receiving notice of the denial, making it timely.

    Original Description:

    Neypes v. CA

    Original Title

    Neypes v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioners filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land before the RTC which was subsequently dismissed. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The petitioners then filed a notice of appeal, however the RTC denied the notice as untimely. The issues were whether the order dismissing the complaint or the order denying the motion for reconsideration triggered the start of the 15-day period to appeal, and whether the notice of appeal was timely filed. The Supreme Court held that the order denying the motion for reconsideration was the final order appealed from, and that the petitioners filed their notice of appeal within 15 days of receiving notice of the denial, making it timely.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views2 pages

    G.R. No. 141524 Neypes Vs CA Facts

    Uploaded by

    Jesse Razon
    The petitioners filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land before the RTC which was subsequently dismissed. The petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was also denied. The petitioners then filed a notice of appeal, however the RTC denied the notice as untimely. The issues were whether the order dismissing the complaint or the order denying the motion for reconsideration triggered the start of the 15-day period to appeal, and whether the notice of appeal was timely filed. The Supreme Court held that the order denying the motion for reconsideration was the final order appealed from, and that the petitioners filed their notice of appeal within 15 days of receiving notice of the denial, making it timely.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    141524
    Neypes vs CA

    FACTS:

    The petitioners in this case filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land and/or
    reconveyance and/or reversion with preliminary injunction before the RTC Roxas, Oriental
    Mindoro

    Subsequently both petitioners and respondents filed various motions with the trial court such as
    the petitioners filed a Motion to declare the respondent heirs, the Bureau of Lands and the
    Bureau of Forest Development in default and the respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss.

    The RTC grant the petitioners motion to declare respondents Bureau of Lands and Bureau of
    Forest Development in default 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. It was also denied Land Bank’s motion to dismiss for lack of cause of action because
    there were hypothetical admissions and matters that could be determined only after trial. Also
    denied the motion to dismiss filed by respondent heirs of del Mundo based on prescription, and
    because there were factual matters that could be determined only after trial.

    On March 3, 1998, petitioners allegedly received a copy of the order of dismissal and on March
    18, 1998, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration (15 days after receipt of the order).
    On July 1, 1998, the RTC issued another order dismissing the motion for reconsideration which
    petitioners received on July 22, 1998.

    On July 27, 1998, petitioners filed a notice of appeal and paid the appeal fees on August 3, 1998.
    However on August 4, 1998, the RTC denied the notice of appeal, holding that it was filed eight
    days late. This was received by petitioners on July 31, 1998. Petitioners filed a motion for
    reconsideration but this too was denied in an order dated September 3, 1998.

    Petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure was
    filed before the Court of Appeals assailing the dismissal of the notice of appeal.

    ISSUE:

    (1) Whether or not receipt of a final order triggers the start of the 15-day reglmentary period to
    appeal, the February 12, 1998 order dismissing the complaint or the July 1, 1998 order
    dismissing the Motion for Reconsideration.
    (2) Whether or not petitioners file their notice of appeal on time.

    HELD:

    (1) The July 1, 1998 order dismissing the motion for reconsideration should be deemed as the
    final order. In the case of Quelnan v. VHF Philippines, Inc., the trial court declared petitioner
    non-suited and accordingly dismissed his complaint. Upon receipt of the order of dismissal, he
    filed an omnibus motion to set it aside. When the omnibus motion was filed, 12 days of the 15-
    day period to appeal the order had lapsed. He later on received another order, this time
    dismissing his omnibus motion. He then filed his notice of appeal. But this was likewise
    dismissed ― for having been filed out of time. The court a quo ruled that petitioner should have
    appealed within 15 days after the dismissal of his complaint since this was the final order that
    was appealable under the Rules. The SC reversed the trial court and declared that it was the
    denial of the motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal of a complaint which constituted
    the final order as it was what ended the issues raised there. This pronouncement was reiterated in
    the more recent case of Apuyan v. Haldeman et al. where the SC again considered the order
    denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration as the final order which finally disposed of the
    issues involved in the case. Based on the aforementioned cases, the SC sustained petitioners’
    view that the order dated July 1, 1998 denying their motion for reconsideration was the final
    order contemplated in the Rules.

    (2) YES. The SC thus held that petitioners seasonably filed their notice of appeal within the fresh
    period of 15 days, counted from July 22, 1998 (the date of receipt of notice denying their motion
    for reconsideration). This pronouncement is not inconsistent with Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules
    which states that the appeal shall be taken within 15 days from notice of judgment or final order
    appealed from. The use of the disjunctive word “or” signifies disassociation and independence of
    one thing from another. It should, as a rule, be construed in the sense in which it ordinarily
    implies. Hence, the use of “or” in the above provision supposes that the notice of appeal may be
    filed within 15 days from the notice of judgment or within 15 days from notice of the “final
    order,” which we already determined to refer to the July 1, 1998 order denying the motion for a
    new trial or reconsideration.

    You might also like