You are on page 1of 3

78. SPOUSES RICARDO & LEONILA DE LOS SANTOS vs. MA.

SOCORRO
V. VDA. DE MANGUBAT, et al.
G.R. No: G.R. NO. 149508 Date: October 10, 2007
Ponente: AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Tickler: RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF 15-DAY FRESH PERIOD


RULE; NEYPES VS. CA

Doctrine: The fresh period rule is a procedural law as it prescribes a


fresh period of 15 days within which an appeal may be made in the
event that the motion for reconsideration is denied by the lower
court. Following the rule on retroactivity of procedural laws, the
fresh period rule should be applied to pending actions, such as the
present case. The purpose of the fresh period rule is to standardize
the appeal periods provided in the Rules of Court and to afford
litigants a fair opportunity to appeal their cases.

Facts:

A Complaint for Damages with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction


was filed by respondents with RTC-Malolos Bulacan against the petitioner
spouses. Respondents allege that they are the registered owners of Lot No.
1033, on the east thereto is the lot owned by petitioners fronting the
provincial road. They allege that petitioners’ executed a duly notarized Deed
of Assignment of Right of Way conveying a strip of their lot to be used as
respondents’ permanent right of way. But sometime thereafter, petitioners
deliberately placed sand and gravel along the passageway which violated the
right of way of respondents and caused irreparable damage and injury to
them.

Petitioners denied liability claiming that the persons who allegedly executed
the Deed of Assignment are neither the owners nor possessors; hence, the
deed is null and void.

RTC Decision (May 3, 2000): in favor of the respondents.


It granted a permanent right of way upon payment of the proper
indemnification, but which denied the respondents prayer for damages.

 May 12, 2000 – petitioners received a copy of the Decision.

 May 29, 2000 - petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration via


registered mail.

RTC 1st Order (July 19, 2000): denied the Motion for Reconsideration.
 August 3, 2000 - petitioners received a copy of the 1st Order.

 August 15, 2000 - petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal with RTC.

RTC 2nd Order (August 17, 2000): denied the Appeal.


Because from the records, the Motion for Reconsideration of the petitioners
was filed out of time, more so was their Notice of Appeal.

CA Decision: Dismissed petitioner’s petition for certiorari Rule 65.


(1) The verification and the non-forum shopping certification is signed by
petitioners counsel which is proscribed by law; and (2) the petitioners failed
to file a Motion for Reconsideration before resorting to the petition for
certiorari.

Petitioner’s contentions:
(1) RTC in its Orders gravely abused its discretion in denying both of its
Motion for Reconsideration and Notice of Appeal despite the fact that
they had meritorious grounds and were timely filed within the
reglementary period.
(2) CA gravely abused its discretion when it affirmed the RTC Orders.

*Note: In 2005, pending resolution of petitioner’s petition for certiorari Rule


65 with the SC, the SC amended the Rules of Court on the appeal period in
Neypes v. Court of Appeals.

Issues:

1) Whether or not the ruling in Neypes v. Court of Appeals should be


retroactively applied in the present case. YES

2) Applying the fresh period rule, whether or not the Notice of Appeal of
the petitioners was filed within the reglementary period for perfecting
an appeal. YES.

Held:

1) YES. Procedural laws do not come within the legal conception of a


retroactive law, or the general rule against the retroactive operation of
statues - they may be given retroactive effect on actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage and this will not violate any
right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected, insomuch
as there are no vested rights in rules of procedure. The fresh period
rule is a procedural law as it prescribes a fresh period of 15 days
within which an appeal may be made in the event that the motion for
reconsideration is denied by the lower court. Following the rule on
retroactivity of procedural laws, the fresh period rule should be
applied to pending actions, such as the present case. The
purpose of the fresh period rule is to standardize the appeal periods
provided in the Rules of Court and to afford litigants a fair opportunity
to appeal their cases.

2) YES. Petitioners filed their Notice of Appeal on August 15, 2000 or


12 days from receipt of the Order denying their motion for
reconsideration on August 3, 2000. Hence, following the fresh period
rule, the notice of appeal filed by petitioners may now be considered
as having been filed well within the fresh period of 15 days.

You might also like