Myline Cordial

FACTS:
– Petitioners 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

-Both petitioners and respondents filed various motions with the trial court.
Petitioners – Motion to declare the respondent heirs, the Bureau of Lands and the Bureau of Forest Development in default
Respondents: Motion to dismiss

RTC’s order dated May 16, 1997:
1. Granted 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;
2. 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, and
3. 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.

The respondent heirs filed a motion for reconsideration on the ground that the trial court could very well resolve the issue of prescription from the bare allegations of the complaint itself without waiting for the trial proper.

RTC’s order dated February 12, 1998:  Dismissed petitioners complaint on the ground that the action had already prescribed.

March 3, 1998 – Petitioners allegedly received a copy of the order of dismissal
March 18, 1998 – Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration (15 days after receipt of the order)
July 1, 1998 – the RTC issued another order dismissing the motion for reconsideration which petitioners received on July 22, 1998.
July 27, 1998 – petitioners filed a notice of appeal and paid the appeal fees on August 3, 1998.
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: WON the petitioner seasonably filed their notice of appeal.

Petitioner’s argument: The 15-day reglementary period to appeal started to run only on July 22, 1998 since this was the day they received the final order of the trial court denying their motion for reconsideration. When they filed their notice of appeal on July 27, 1998, only five days had elapsed and they were well within the reglementary period for appeal.

The Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition ruling 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.

RULING: The 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). There is a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration.

Notes:

Remedial Law – Appeals —- The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal. The period to appeal is fixed by both statute and procedural rules.

An appeal should be taken within 15 days from the notice of judgment or final order appealed from. A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more for the court to do with respect to it. It is an adjudication on the merits which, considering the evidence presented at the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are; or it may be an order or judgment that dismisses an action.