Fresh Na Fresh Ang Period Neypes v. CA

“FRESH NA FRESH ANG PERIOD”
DOMINGO NEYPES, LUZ FAUSTINO, ROGELIO FAUSTINO, LOLITO VICTORIANO, JACOB

OBANIA AND DOMINGO CABACUNGAN, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HEIRS
OF BERNARDO DEL MUNDO, namely: FE, CORAZON, JOSEFA, SALVADOR and CARMEN,
all surnamed DEL MUNDO, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND HON. ANTONIO N.
ROSALES, Presiding Judge, Branch 43, Regional Trial Court, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro,
respondents.
Facts:
1. Neypes et al filed an annulment of judgment and titles of land and/or reconveyance

and/or reversion with preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43,
of Roxas, Oriental Mindoro, against the Bureau of Forest Development, Bureau of
Lands, Land Bank of the Philippines and the heirs of Bernardo del Mundo, namely, Fe,
Corazon, Josefa, Salvador and Carmen.
2. There were various motions filed by both parties during the course of proceedings.
3. May 16, 1997 - Judge Antonio N. Rosales resolved:
-motion to declare BL and BFD default dismissed
-Landbank motion to dismiss denied, bec of factual matters
discoverable after trial
4. February 12, 1998 - the trial court dismissed petitioners' complaint on the ground that the
action had already prescribed.
5. Petitioners allegedly received a copy of the order of dismissal on March 3, 1998 and, on
the 15th day thereafter or on March 18, 1998, filed a motion for reconsideration.
6. July 1, 1998, the trial court issued another order dismissing the motion for
reconsideration 3 which petitioners received on July 22, 1998.
7. Five days later, on July 27, 1998, petitioners filed a notice of appeal and paid the appeal
fees on August 3, 1998.
8. On August 4, 1998, the court a quo denied the notice of appeal, holding that it was filed
eight days late. This was received by petitioners on July 31, 1998.
9. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but this too was denied in an order dated
September 3, 1998.
10. Petitioners assailed the dismissal of notice of appeal via certiorari and mandamus under
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Arguments:
From receipt on July 22, 1998 only five (5) days lapsed.
Reglementary period commences on July 22, 1998
11. September 16, 1999, the Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition. It ruled that the
15-day period to appeal should have been reckoned from March 3, 1998 or the day they
received the February 12, 1998 order dismissing their complaint.
12. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforementioned decision. This was
denied by the Court of Appeals on January 6, 2000.
Issues:
1. Will the July 1, 1998 be deemed as the "final order," and thus receipt of which triggers
the start of the 15-day reglementary period to appeal?
2. Is the notice of appeal filed within the fresh period?
Ruling:
Yes. We 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.
Yes. The notice of appeal was well within the fresh appeal period of 15 days. Petitioners filed
their notice of appeal on July 27, 1998 or five days from receipt of the order denying their motion
for reconsideration on July 22, 1998. A party litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15
days from receipt of the Regional Trial Court's decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of
the order (the "final order") denying his motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration.
Obviously, the new 15-day period may be availed only if either motion is filed. The 15-day fresh
period does not run counter to BP 129 which shortened the appeal period from 30 days to 15
days to hasten the disposition of cases.
The "fresh period rule" shall also apply toRule 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 31 to the Court
of Appeals and Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. 3

Fresh Na Fresh Ang Period Neypes v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fresh Na Fresh Ang Period Neypes v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“FRESH NA FRESH ANG PERIOD”

DOMINGO NEYPES, LUZ FAUSTINO, ROGELIO FAUSTINO, LOLITO VICTORIANO, JACOB

1. Neypes et al filed an annulment of judgment and titles of land and/or reconveyance

2. Is the notice of appeal filed within the fresh period?

You might also like