9.

Heirs of Numeranio v Miranda  Petitioners did not file any appeal hence the Decision became final and
GR No. 179638 executory. RTC issued a WOE which was not implemented. Respondent filed an
July 8, 2013 Ex-parte Motion praying that RTC issue a Break Open and Demolition Order in
By: HAPPY order to compel the petitioners to vacate his property. But since more than 5
Topic: Service by Registered Mail years have elapsed from the time the Writ of Execution should have been
Petitioners: HEIRS OF NUMERIANO MIRANDA, SR., namely: CIRILA (deceased), enforced, the RTC denied the Motion.
CORNELIO, NUMERIANO, JR., ERLINDA, LOLITA, RUFINA, DANILO, ALEJANDRO,
FELIMON, TERESITA, ELIZABETH and ANALIZA, all surnamed MIRANDA  This prompted respondent to file with the RTC a Petition for Revival of Judgment.
Respondent: PABLO R. MIRANDA Petitioners opposed the revival of judgment.
Ponente: DEL CASTILLO, J
Doctrine: Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, pleadings may be filed in  RTC granted the petition. Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal via LBC which was
court either personally or by registered mail. In the first case, the date of filing is the opposed by respondent on the ground that the RTC Decision has long become
date of receipt. In the second case, the date of mailing is the date of receipt. final and executory. Petitioners, in turn, moved for the transmittal of the original
records of the case to the CA, insisting that respondent's opposition is without
Facts: merit.

 Petitioners as the heirs of Numeriano Miranda, Sr., filed before RTC, a Complaint  RTC denied the Notice of Appeal. Petitioners filed a Petition for Mandamus
for Annulment of Titles and Specific Performance, against the heirs of Pedro which was denied on the ground that the Notice of Appeal was filed out of time.
Miranda, namely: Pacita and Oscar Miranda; the heir of Tranquilino Miranda, Hence, this recourse.
Rogelio Miranda; and the spouses respondent Pablo Miranda and Aida Lorenzo.
Petitioners’ Arguments:
 RTC decision:  Petitioners assert that an action to revive judgment is appealable, and that their
o upheld and sustained the validity of TCTs appeal was perfected on time. They insist that the Notice of Appeal, which they
filed on the 15th day via LBC, was seasonably filed since the law does not require
o ordered Pablo Miranda to indemnify all other heirs of Numeriano,
a specific mode of service for filing a notice of appeal.
ordered plaintiffs Lolita, Alejandro, Teresita, Rufina Miranda and all other
persons claiming rights under them to immediately vacate the residential
Issue: W/N Notice of Appeal was filed out of time
house and to pay the sps Pablo and Aida Miranda
o proclaimed Rogelio Miranda is not the biological son of Tranquilino
Ruling: YES. The Notice of Appeal was belatedly filed
Miranda and therefore not entitled to inherit
o Declaring CORNELIO MIRANDA, NUMERIANO MIRANDA, JR., ERLINDA
 It is basic and elementary that a Notice of Appeal should be filed "within fifteen
MIRANDA, LOLITA MIRANDA, RUFINA MIRANDA, DANILO MIRANDA,
(15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from."
ALEJANDRO MIRANDA, FELIMON MIRANDA, TERESITA MIRANDA,
ELIZABETH MIRANDA, ANALIZA MIRANDA, PABLO MIRANDA and PACITA
 Under Section 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, pleadings may be filed in court
MIRANDA as the lawful legal heirs of the deceased TRANQUILINO
either personally or by registered mail. In the first case, the date of filing is the
MIRANDA and ordering them to partition among themselves the Lot
date of receipt. In the second case, the date of mailing is the date of receipt.
covered by TCT registered in the name of TRANQUILINO MIRANDA
o Ordered all the heirs to commission the survey of the Lot or to authorize
 In this case, however, the counsel for petitioners filed the Notice of Appeal via a
in writing, one of them to commission such survey, in order to avoid a
private courier, a mode of filing not provided in the Rules.
chaotic situation similar to the case at bar.
 Though not prohibited by the Rules, we cannot consider the filing of petitioners'
Notice of Appeal via LBC timely filed. It is established jurisprudence that "the
 date of delivery of pleadings to a private letter-forwarding agency is not to be
considered as the date of filing thereof in court;" instead, "the date of actual
receipt by the court is deemed the date of filing of that pleading."

 Records show that the Notice of Appeal was mailed on the 15th day and was
received by the court on the 16th day or one day beyond the reglementary
period. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that the Notice of Appeal was filed out of
time.

 Neither can petitioners use typhoon "Florita" as an excuse for the belated filing
of the Notice of Appeal because work in government offices in Metro Manila was
not suspended on July 13, 2006, the day petitioners' Notice of Appeal was mailed
via LBC.

 And even if we, in the interest of justice, give due course to the appeal despite
its late filing, the result would still be the same. The appeal would still be denied
for lack of merit.

Petition: DENIED.