CASE DIGEST: Quiqui v. Boncaros

 

Quiqui vs. Boncaros, G.R. No. L-51841, June 30, 1987

 

FACTS:

Herein private respondents were able to secure Free Patent Title No. FV-13703 in their names. The 450-square meter lot in question was included in the survey of the entire parcel of land covered by the said Title.

On the other hand, it is the position of the herein petitioners that the 450-square meter lot in question belongs to them and not to the private respondents. They contend that the said lot was purchased by their late father sometime in 1920 and that ever since then, they have been in actual possession thereof, peacefully, openly continuously and adversely, for a period of 56 years already. They also contend that the private respondents succeeded in putting the said property in their name by clandestinely including the said lot in the survey of the premises undertaken by the Government sometime in the 1970s.

On November 9, 1976, the petitioners filed a Complaint in the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental for "reconveyance and/or annulment of Title with damages" against the private respondents.

In its Order dated July 16, 1979, the trial court dismissed the Complaint for reconveyance on the ground that it had no jurisdiction over the case. Counsel for the petitioners received a copy of the said Order on July 17, 1979.

On August 17, 1979, the petitioners filed a Motion for the reconsideration of the Order of the trial court dismissing the Complaint. The said Motion for Reconsideration is dated August 16, 1979.

The private respondents opposed the Motion for Reconsideration, stating that the same had been filed beyond the 30 day reglementary period under the Rules. The private respondents maintain that inasmuch as the petitioners received their copy of the Order of dismissal on July 17, 1979, they had up to August 16, 1979 to file the Motion for reconsideration, computed on the basis of the 30-day reglementary period. They contend that since the said Motion was filed beyond the 30-day period, the Order of dismissal has become final and executory and could no longer be the subject of a Motion for reconsideration. In its Order dated August 21, 1979, the trial court denied the Motion for Reconsideration on the ground asserted by the private respondents.

On August 23, 1979, the petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal, seeking relief from the Court of Appeals. They sought the Appeal on the ground that the Orders of the trial court dismissing their Complaint and denying their Motion for Reconsideration are contrary to law and the evidence submitted.

On August 28, 1979, the trial court denied the Notice of Appeal.

Finding the action taken by the trial court unsatisfactory, the petitioners brought their case directly to this Court by way of the instant Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. They maintain that the Order of the trial court dated July 16, 1979 is illegal and void for having been "issued without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, for the so called "one day late" (ground) upon which it is based does not actually exist. " They pray that the trial court be ordered to approve their Notice of Appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner’s MR for being one day late

RULING:

The Appeal may be taken within 30 days from notice of the judgment or order of the trial court. In the event that the party aggrieved by the judgment or order of the trial court files a Motion to set aside the judgment or order, i. e a Motion for Reconsideration, the time during which such Motion is pending resolution shall, as a rule, be deducted from the 30-day period. In relation thereto, the New Civil Code states that in computing a period, the first day shall be excluded and the last day included.

The petitioners admit that they received their copy of the Order of dismissal of their Complaint on July 17, 1979. Under Section 3, Rule 41, they had 30 days within which to appeal their case or to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the judgment or order of the trial court. In computing the 30-day period, July 17, 1979 (the first day) is excluded, pursuant to Article 13 of the New Civil Code. Counting 30 days thereafter, beginning on July 18, 1979, the petitioners had up to August 16, 1979 to file their Motion for Reconsideration. Their Motion for Reconsideration, although dated August 16, 1979, was filed with the trial court on August 17, 1979 or one day beyond the 30-day reglementary period prescribed by Section 3 of Rule 41.

Under these circumstances, the order of the trial court dismissing the Complaint has become final and executory. As such, it is beyond the reach of a Motion for consideration. The Notice of Appeal, therefore, was properly denied. Perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period laid down by law is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional and failure to perfect an appeal as required by the rules has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory. A strict observance of the reglementary period within which to exercise the statutory right of appeal has been considered as absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays.