G.R. No.

181949
April 23, 2014
HEIRS OF FRANCISCO BIHAG, vs. HEIRS OF NICASIO BATHAN
Remedial Law; Petition for Review on Certiorari. An aggrieved party is allowed a fresh period of 15 days counted
from receipt of the order denying a motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration within which to file the notice of
appeal with the Regional Trial Court.
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
FACTS:
Sometime in 1960, Primitiva Bathan attempted to borrow money from his brother,
Francisco Bihag. However, Francisco had no money at that time. So instead, Primitiva asked him to
mortgage his land to the bank so she could obtain a loan. Primitiva promised to pay the loan, and
return to Francisco the necessary documents that were submitted to the bank for the loans approval.
Francisco agreed on the condition that Primitiva is to pay the real property taxes on the land. Upon
Franciscos death in 1979, however, his heirs discovered that the mortgaged on the land had long
been cancelled, and that the spouses Bathan had taken possession of the land and are hauling
materials and limestones therefrom.
The heirs filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title, Damages, with a prayer for a Writ of
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order herein respondents in the Mandaue RTC against. On
March 20, 2006, the RTC issued a Decision in favor of herein respondents. The RTC also denied
the Motion for Reconsideration in its decision dated August 11, 2006. Unfazed, the petitioners filed
a Notice of Appeal, but the same was denied in the order dated, January 5, 2007.
In its decision denying the Notice of Appeal, the lower court ratiocinated that the petitioners
received a copy of the Decision on April 20, 2006 but filed the Motion for Reconsideration on April
28, 2006 after the lapse of eight (8) days. Furthermore, petitioners received a copy of the Order
denying their motion on September 22, 2006 but filed the Notice of Appeal on October 2, 2006
after the lapse of ten days. Thus, the Notice of Appeal was filed after the lapse of eighteen (18) days
from receipt of the decision, beyond the fifteen (15)-days reglementary period. And as shown by the
Certification issued by the assistant postmaster, this decision was received by the petitioners counsel
on January 22, 2007.
On October 10, 2007, the petitioners filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari with prayer
for the issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction under Rule 65, assailing the
decision of the lower court. The same was denied for not having first filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the January 5, 2007 decision, and, as of filing date of the petition, the assailed
decision had attained finality. Hence, this petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUES: Whether the CAs dismissal of the petition for certiorari was proper.
HELD: Affirmative. In Neypes vs. Court of Appeals, it had been decided that in order to standardize
the appeal periods provided in the Rules and to afford litigants fair opportunity to appeal their cases,
an aggrieved party has a fresh period of 15 days counted from receipt of the order dismissing a
motion for a new trial or motion for reconsideration, within which to file the notice of appeal in the
RTC. Thus, the RTC erred in holding that the Notice of Appeal was filed out of time.

However, by the petitioners failure to appeal or move for a reconsideration within 15 days
from his receipt of the courts decision or order disposing of the action or proceeding, the January 5,
2007 decision had become final and executory. Petitioners should have filed their motion for
reconsideration within 15 days from receipt of the decision, or on or before February 6, 2007, but
they did not. Instead, they filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals on October 10,
2007. At this time, the RTCs January 5, 2007 Order denying the Notice to Appeal had long become
final and executory. Once it becomes final and executory, the decision or order may no longer be
amended or modified, not even by an appellate court.