Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 31 views

    G.R. No. 141524 September 14, 2005: Neypes v. CA

    Uploaded by

    noboc
    1) Petitioners filed a case that was dismissed by the trial court on the ground of prescription. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration that was denied. 2) Petitioners then filed a notice of appeal. The trial court denied the appeal as filed out of time. 3) Petitioners argued before the Court of Appeals that the period to appeal should be counted from when they received notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration, not the original dismissal order. 4) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioners, establishing a new "fresh period rule" where the period to appeal is counted from receipt of the order denying a motion for reconsideration or new trial, not the original

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. No. 141524 September 14, 2005: Neypes v. CA

    Uploaded by

    noboc
    31 views1 page
    1) Petitioners filed a case that was dismissed by the trial court on the ground of prescription. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration that was denied. 2) Petitioners then filed a notice of appeal. The trial court denied the appeal as filed out of time. 3) Petitioners argued before the Court of Appeals that the period to appeal should be counted from when they received notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration, not the original dismissal order. 4) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioners, establishing a new "fresh period rule" where the period to appeal is counted from receipt of the order denying a motion for reconsideration or new trial, not the original

    Original Description:

    CIVIL PROCEDURE REMEDIAL LAW

    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?

    1) Petitioners filed a case that was dismissed by the trial court on the ground of prescription. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration that was denied. 2) Petitioners then filed a notice of appeal. The trial court denied the appeal as filed out of time. 3) Petitioners argued before the Court of Appeals that the period to appeal should be counted from when they received notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration, not the original dismissal order. 4) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioners, establishing a new "fresh period rule" where the period to appeal is counted from receipt of the order denying a motion for reconsideration or new trial, not the original

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    31 views1 page

    G.R. No. 141524 September 14, 2005: Neypes v. CA

    Uploaded by

    noboc
    1) Petitioners filed a case that was dismissed by the trial court on the ground of prescription. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration that was denied. 2) Petitioners then filed a notice of appeal. The trial court denied the appeal as filed out of time. 3) Petitioners argued before the Court of Appeals that the period to appeal should be counted from when they received notice of the denial of their motion for reconsideration, not the original dismissal order. 4) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioners, establishing a new "fresh period rule" where the period to appeal is counted from receipt of the order denying a motion for reconsideration or new trial, not the original

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Neypes v.

    CA
    G.R. No. 141524 September 14, 2005

    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, Respondent.

    Facts:
    Petitioners filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land and/or reconveyance and/or reversion with preliminary injunction against
    private respondents before the RTC. In an order dated February 12, 1998, the TC dismissed petitioner’s complaint on the ground of prescription.
    Petitioners allegedly received a copy of the order of dismissal on March 3 and filed a motion for reconsideration fifteen days after (March 18).

    On July 1, TC dismissed the MTR which petitioners received on July 22. Five days later (July 27), petitioners filed a notice of appeal.

    On August 4, TC denied the appeal on the ground that it was filed eight days late, which petitioners received on July 31. Petitioners filed MTR
    but this too was denied in an order dated September 3.

    Thus, petitioners assailed the dismissal of the appeal before the CA under Rule 65, claiming that they have seasonably filed their notice of appeal.
    They argued that the 15-day reglementary period to appeal started to run only on July 22 since this was when they received the final order of the
    TC denying their motion to appeal. When they filed their notice of appeal on July 27, only five days had elapsed and they were well within the
    reglementary period for appeal.

    The CA dismissed the petition, ruling that the 15day period to appeal should have been reckoned from March 3, or the day they received the
    February 12 order dismissing their complaint.

    Issue:
    WON the petitioners filed their notice of appeal on time

    Ruling:
    Yes. To standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases, the Court deems it
    practical to allow 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. Henceforth, this “fresh period rule” shall also apply to Rule 40, Rule 42, Rule 43 and Rule
    45. The new rule aims to regiment or make the appeal period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for new trial,
    motion for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution.

    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