Neypes v.

CA
Facts:
Neypes et al., filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land and/or
reconveyance and/or reversion with preliminary injunction against the Bureau of
Forest Development and the Heirs of Bernardo Del Mundo.
During the course of the proceedings, both parties filed various motions with the
RTC, the most notable of which were: a) the motion filed by Neypes to declare
respondent heirs in default; and b) the motion to dismiss filed by the respondent
heirs. The trial court resolved the foregoing motions as follows: a) because the
service of summons to them was improper, the motion to declare respondent heirs
in default was denied; and b) because there were factual matters that could be
determined only after trial, the respondent heirs motion to dismiss, based on
prescription, was also denied. From the latter order, the heirs filed an MR which was
acted upon affirmatively by the trial court by dismissing the case on the ground that
Neypes action had already prescribed. Neypes allegedly received a copy of the
order of dismissal on March 3, 1998 and, on the 15 th day thereafter, or March 18,
filed an MR. The trial court issued another order dismissing the MR which Neypes
received on July 22, 1998. Five days later, on July 27, Neypes filed a notice of
appeal. The CA denied the appeal on the ground that it was filed 8 days late.
Neypes filed another MR but the CA dismissed the same, 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. From the
foregoing, Neypes sought recourse to the SC.
ISSUE: WoN Neypes et al. were able to file their appeal within the reglementary
period
Ruling: Yes. 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. In this case, it
was the order dated July 1, 1998 denying their motion for reconsideration that was
the final order contemplated in the Rules.
However, before delving into the punctuality of Neypes appeal, the Court made a
pronouncement in this wise: 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.
Following this rule, a party litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days
from receipt of the RTCs 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 MR on July 22, 1998. Hence, the notice of appeal was well
within the fresh appeal period of 15 days, as already discussed.