G.R. No. 181949 , April 23, 2014
HEIRS OF FRANCISCO BIHAG, NAMELY: ALEJANDRA BIHAG, NICOMEDES B. BIHAG, VERONICA B. ACOSTA, SUSANA B. MINOZA, PAULINO B. BIHAG, DANILO B. BIHAG, TIMOTEO B. BIHAG JR., EDILBERTO B. BIHAG, JOSEPHINE B. MINOZA, and MA. FEB. ARDITA, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF NICASIO BATHAN, NAMELY: PRIMITIV AB. BATHAN and DUMININA B. GAMALIER, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, heirs of Francisco Bihag, filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Damages, and Writ of Injunction and TRO against respondents, heirs of Nicasio Bathan, in the RTC of Mandaue City. Petitioners alleged that in the 1960s, respondent Primitiva Bathan (Francisco’s sister) borrowed money from Francisco, and when he had none, she asked him to mortgage his unregistered land to a bank for her loan, promising to pay the obligation and return the documents. Francisco agreed on condition she pay the real property tax. Upon Francisco’s death in 1976, petitioners discovered the mortgage had been cancelled, respondents refused to return documents, and respondents took possession of and were hauling materials from the land. Respondents claimed ownership, alleging Francisco verbally sold the land to them in 1959 after failing to repay a loan, and pointed to an Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs with Deed of Sale signed by some petitioners in 1984. The RTC ruled for respondents on March 20, 2006, dismissing the case, ordering petitioners to surrender possession, and awarding damages. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration, received on April 20, 2006, and filed on April 28, 2006. The RTC denied the motion on August 11, 2006, and petitioners received the denial on September 22, 2006. Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal on October 2, 2006. The RTC, in a January 5, 2007 Order, denied the Notice of Appeal as filed out of time, calculating the period from receipt of the decision. Petitioners did not file a motion for reconsideration of this January 5, 2007 Order. Respondents moved for a Writ of Execution, which the RTC granted on April 24, 2007, issuing a Writ on May 2, 2007. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA on October 10, 2007. The CA dismissed it on October 26, 2007 for insufficiency in form and substance, citing failure to indicate material dates, lack of prior motion for reconsideration, defective verification/certification, and missing documents. The CA denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration on January 14, 2008.

ISSUE

Whether the disapproval of the Notice of Appeal by the RTC was in accordance with law.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that while the RTC erroneously denied the Notice of Appeal under a misapplication of the reglementary period, the Petition must fail because the January 5, 2007 Order denying the appeal had attained finality. Applying the doctrine in Neypes v. Court of Appeals, an aggrieved party has a fresh period of 15 days from receipt of an order denying a motion for reconsideration to file a notice of appeal. Petitioners received the denial of their Motion for Reconsideration on September 22, 2006, and filed their Notice of Appeal on October 2, 2006, which was within the fresh 15-day period and thus timely. However, the RTC’s January 5, 2007 Order denying the Notice of Appeal became final and executory because petitioners failed to file a motion for reconsideration of that order or otherwise challenge it promptly. The CA correctly dismissed the subsequent Petition for Certiorari for, among other grounds, lack of a prior motion for reconsideration of the January 5, 2007 Order. The doctrine of finality of judgment precludes the reopening of a final order.