Fresh Period Rule

DOMINGO NEYPES, et. al. vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (G.R. No. 141524)

PROBLEM:
Petitioners Neypes et.al. filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land and/or
reconveyance and/or reversion with preliminary injunction before the RTC against the Bureau of
Forest Development Bureau of Lands, Land Bank of the Philippines and the heirs of Bernardo
del Mundo. In the course of the proceedings, petitioners filed a motion to declare respondents’ in
default, and the latter filed a motion to dismiss.

The trial court dismissed petitioners’ complaint and motion for reconsideration on the ground
that the action had already prescribed. Five days later, petitioners filed a notice of appeal and
paid the appeal fees. However, the court denied the notice of appeal, holding that it was filed
eight days late. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was also denied. Petitioners assailed the
dismissal of the notice of appeal before the Court of Appeals wherein they argued that the 15-day
reglementary period to appeal started to run only on July 22, 1998 since this was the day they
received the final order of the trial court denying their motion for reconsideration. When they
filed their notice of appeal on July 27, 1998, only five days had elapsed and they were well
within the reglementary period for appeal. However, the CA dismissed the petition. It ruled that
the 15-day period to appeal should have been reckoned the day they received the order
dismissing their complaint which is February 12,1998.

What should be deemed as the final order, receipt of which triggers the start of the 15-day
reglementary period to appeal the February 12, 1998 order dismissing the complaint or the July
1, 1998 order dismissing the MR? Did the petitioners filed their notice of appeal in time?

ANSWER

The Supreme Court ruled that it was the denial of the motion for reconsideration of an order of
dismissal of a complaint which constituted the final order. The Court sustains petitioners view
that the order dated July 1, 1998 denying their motion for reconsideration was the final order
contemplated in the Rules.

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.

Petitioners here filed their notice of appeal on July 27, 1998, five days from receipt of the order
denying their motion for reconsideration. Hence, the notice of appeal was well within the fresh
appeal period of 15 days, as already discussed. Thus, 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.

Thus a party litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days from receipt of the RTC
decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of the final order denying his motion for new trial
or motion for reconsideration. The new 15-day period may be availed of only if either motion is
filed; otherwise, the decision becomes final and executory after the lapse of the original appeal
period provided in Rule 41, Section 3.