Neypes vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 141524. September 14, 2005

SUMMARY: NEYPES filed an action for annulment of judgement and titles of land, among others, with the
RTC. MD was filed by heirs on the ground of prescription, which was granted after an MR. RTC dismissed
the action on the ground of prescription. The order was dated FEB 12 1998 and received by NEYPES on
MAR 3 1998.
MR was filed on MAR 18 1998 (exactly 15 days). RTC dismissed the MR on JULY 1, 1998 and received on
JULY 22, 1998. A notice of appeal was filed on JULY 27 1998 but denied for being filed out of time. MR was
filed but denied. Upon certiorari, CA dismissed the petition and ruled that the reckoning period is MAR 3 1998.
SC=the notice of appeal was filed on time was the reckoning period was JULY 22 1998 (receive of the order
dismissing the MR). The dismissal of MR was considered as the “final order” from which the 15 day period of
ordinary appeal (RULE 41, SEC 3) should be taken. (as opposed to another reckoning period which is the
notice of judgement). The SC provided for a fresh period rule in appeal when there is a MR or Motion for New
Trial filed. The rule do not violate BP 129 because the original period for appeal remains and strict compliance
still applies.

DOCTRINE:
 The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process; It is merely a statutory privilege and
may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.
 An appeal should be taken within 15 days from the notice of judgment or final order appealed from.
 Court deems it practical to allow a fresh period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the
Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or motion for
reconsideration to standardize the appeal periods provided in the Rules.

FACTS:
 Petitioners Domingo Neypes, Luz Faustino, Rogelio Faustino, Lolito Victoriano, Jacob Obania and
Domingo Cabacungan filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land and/or reconveyance
and/or reversion with preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court 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, the parties (both petitioners and respondents) filed various motions:
MOTION RULING OF RTC JUDGE
ROSALES
To declare in default: (filed by  BFD and BL are in default
NEYPES et al.)  Heirs are not due to improper
 BFD and BL summons.
 Heirs of Mundo
To dismiss: (filed by heirs and  Both MD are dismissed
LBP)  MR by heirs and RTC
 Lack of cause of action (LBP) dismissed the case.
 Prescription (heirs)

 In an order dated February 12, 1998, the trial court dismissed petitioners’ complaint on the ground that the
action had already prescribed.
 Petitioners allegedly received a copy of the order of dismissal on March 3, 1998 and, on the 15th day
thereafter or on March 18, 1998, filed a motion for reconsideration.
 On July 1, 1998, the trial court issued another order dismissing the motion for reconsideration which
petitioners received on July 22, 1998.
 Five days later, on July 27, 1998, petitioners filed a notice of appeal and paid the appeal fees on August 3,
1998.
 On August 4, 1998, the court a quo denied the notice of appeal, holding that it was filed eight days late.
 This was received by petitioners on July 31, 1998. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration but this too
was denied in an order dated September 3, 1998.
 Via a petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, petitioners
assailed the dismissal of the notice of appeal before the Court of Appeals.
 Court of Appeals (CA) dismissed the petition. It ruled that the 15-day period to appeal should have been
reckoned from March 3, 1998 or the day they received the February 12, 1998 order dismissing their
complaint.
 In this present petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules

Petitioners argue that the order of July 1, 1998 denying their motion for reconsideration should be construed as
the “final order,” not the February 12, 1998 order which dismissed their complaint. Since they received their
copy of the denial of their motion for reconsideration only on July 22, 1998, the 15-day reglementary period to
appeal had not yet lapsed when they filed their notice of appeal on July 27, 1998.
What therefore 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?

ISSUE:
WON the notice of appeal is filed on time. YES.

RULING:
 First and foremost, the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a
statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.
 Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failure
to do so often leads to the loss of the right to appeal.
 Rule 41, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure states:
SEC. 3. Period of ordinary appeal.—The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from the notice of
the judgment or final order appealed from.
 Based on the foregoing, an appeal should be taken within 15 days from the notice of judgment or final
order appealed from.
 A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case, leaving nothing more for the court to do
with respect to it. It is an adjudication on the merits which, considering the evidence presented at the trial,
declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the parties are; or it may be an order or judgment
that dismisses an action.

 In the recent case of Quelnan v. VHF Philippines, Inc., We reversed the trial court and declared that it was
the denial of the motion for reconsideration of an order of dismissal of a complaint which constituted
the final order as it was what ended the issues raised there.
o This pronouncement was reiterated in the more recent case of Apuyan v. Haldeman, et al.
where we again considered the order denying petitioner Apuyan’s motion for reconsideration as
the final order which finally disposed of the issues involved in the case.
 Based on the aforementioned cases, we sustain petitioners’ view that the order dated July 1, 1998 denying
their motion for reconsideration was the final ordercontemplated in the Rules.

 We now come to the next question: if July 1, 1998 was the start of the 15-day reglementary period to
appeal, did petitioners in fact file their notice of appeal on time?
 In Quelnan and Apuyan, We ruled there that they only had the remaining time of the 15-day appeal period
to file the notice of appeal. We consistently applied this rule in similar cases, premised on the long-settled
doctrine that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period permitted by law is not only
mandatory but also jurisdictional.
 In National Waterworks and Sewerage Authority and Authority v. Municipality of Libmanan, however, we
declared that appeal is an essential part of our judicial system and the rules of procedure should not be
applied rigidly.
 The Supreme Court may promulgate procedural rules in all courts. It has the sole prerogative to amend,
repeal or even establish new rules for a more simplified and inexpensive process, and the speedy
disposition of cases. In the rules governing appeals to it and to the Court of Appeals, particularly Rules 42,
43 and 45, the Court allows extensions of time, based on justifiable and compelling reasons, for parties to
file their appeals.
 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 Regional Trial Court, counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for a new trial or
motion for reconsideration.
 Neither does this new rule run counter to the spirit of Section 39 of BP 129 which shortened the appeal
period from 30 days to 15 days to hasten the disposition of cases.
 The original period of appeal (in this case March 3-18, 1998) remains and the requirement for strict
compliance still applies.
o The fresh period of 15 days becomes significant only when a party opts to file a motion for new
trial or motion for reconsideration.
 In this manner, the trial court which rendered the assailed decision is given another opportunity to review
the case and, in the process, minimize and/or rectify any error of judgment.
 While we aim to resolve cases with dispatch and to have judgments of courts become final at some definite
time, we likewise aspire to deliver justice fairly.
 In this case, the new period of 15 days eradicates the confusion as to when the 15-day appeal period
should be counted—from receipt of notice of judgment (March 3, 1998) or from receipt of notice of “final
order” appealed from (July 22, 1998).

 To recapitulate, a party litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days from receipt of the
Regional Trial Court’s decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of the order (the “final order”) denying
his motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration.
 Obviously, 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.
 Petitioners here filed their notice of appeal on July 27, 1998 or five days from receipt of the order denying
their motion for reconsideration on July 22, 1998. Hence, the notice of appeal was well within the fresh
appeal period of 15 days, as already discussed.

HELD:
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, let the records of this case be remanded to the Court of Appeals for
further proceedings.

Format:
 ARIAL 11
 1.0 SPACING