Navarro, Jomery Ann M.

Spouses Benigno Que and Erlinda Que ad Adela Urian, vs. Court of Appeals, Hon.
Florencio Ruiz Jr., RTC Branch 24 Cabugao Ilocos Sur and Isabel Costales

Facts: Respondent Costales occupying a parcel of land which was originally owned by
Carino who dies and the property was later declared as Costales property for taxation
purposes.Respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for Annulment of Quitclaim,
ownership, possession and damages and claiming that the property was her inherit and
she was the granddaughter of Carino and also she denied the claim of the petitioner
that she signed acknowledgement containing renunciation of the rights, interest,
participation, title and possession of the property and acknowledgement confirming she
received 30,000.00.
Respondent prayed to the court to declare her as the owner of the property and files a
complaint to the court, however the property was taken possession by Que and they
declared the land as theirs for tax purposes.
Petitioners received the complaint but failed their lawyer failed to answer and appear in
court, thereby causing the respondent to move to declare th petitioners in default and
thereafter presented evidences accordingly and submitted it for judgement. The RTC
rendered decision in favor of the respondent but the petitioner filed petition for certiorari
in CA which was dismissed.

Issue: Whether or not the CA erred in dismissing the petition o the petitioners.
Ruling: No. The petition has no merit. The petitioners are not entitled to relief of
judgment because their petition was inefficient in form, substance, late filed and
improperly availed of. The petitioners also failed to prove fraud, mistake or excusable
negligence under Sec. 1 of Rule 38. Mistake or fraud refers to mistake of fact not of law
and the allegedly impression that Atty. Ranot prepared the necessary pleading was not
excusable negligence. Petitioner relief of judgement was also filed out of time, hence
the petition was denied.

First Aqua Sugar Traders, Inc. And CBN International (HK) Corporation vs. Bank
of the Philippine Island
Facts: Petitioner was First Aqua Sugar Traders, Inc. and CBN International Corporation
against BPI. The trial court rendered summary judgement on October 16, 2000
dismissing the complaint, the copy of the judgement was received on October 27, 2000
but instead of filing notice of appeal the petitioners filed a Motion for reconsideration
which was denied in an order dated January 30, 2001. Petitioners claimed that they
received the order on February 16, 2001 and filed the notice of appeal on the same day,
the RTC then gave due course to the notice of appeal on February 19,2001.
Respondent filed a Motion to declare October 16, 2000 judgement final alleging that the
notice was filed out of time. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondent and CA
sustained the decision o RTC.

Issue: Whether or not the notice of appeal was filed on time.

Ruling: Yes. To standardise the appeal period provided in the Rule and to afford the
litigants fair opportunity to appeal their case, 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 or motion for reconsideration.
A party litigant may now file his notice either within 15 days from receipt of original
decision or within 15 days from receipt of the order denying the motion for
reconsideration. Hence, the petition is granted and the decision of CA is set aside.