Sps. Delos Santos Vs. Mangubatcopy.docx

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.