Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CADIZ
REMEDIES
D2012
(2) NEYPES V. CA
FACTS: Petitioners Neypes et.al filed for an action for
annulment of judgment and titles of land and/or
reconveyance and/or reversion with preliminary injunction
against Bureau of Forest Development, Bureau of Lands,
Land Bank and heirs of Bernardo del Mundo.
Petitioner filed a motion to declare the respondents in
default while the respondents filed a motion to dismiss
based on prescription. The motion to declare the
respondents in default were granted except for the heirs,
while the motion to dismiss was denied. The respondent
heirs filed a motion for reconsideration. On February 12,
1998, the trial court dismissed the petitioners complaint on
the ground that it has already prescribed which was
allegedly received only on March 3, 1998. On March 18,
1998, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which
was denied July 1, 1998 which was received on July 22,
1998. On July 27, 1998 petitioners filed a notice of appeal
which was denied holding that it was filed 8 days late.
Another motion for reconsideration was filed which was also
denied, hence this petition for certiorari and mandamus.
The petitioners claimed that the 15 day reglementary
period started to run only on July 22 since this was the day
they received the final order of the trial court denying their
motion for reconsideration.
ISSUE: W/N the notice of appeal was filed within the 15 day
reglementary period
HELD: YES. To standardize the appeal periods 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 RTC counted from
the receipt of order dismissing a motion for new trial or
reconsideration, hence this to should apply to MTC. The use
of the disjunctive word or signifies disassociation and
independence from one thing to another. The use therefore
of or should mean that the notice of appeal may be filed
15 days from the notice of judgment or 15 days from the
notice of the final order. The fresh period of 15 days
becomes significant only when a party opts to file a motion
for reconsideration. The petitioner therefore filed it well
within the fresh appeal period of 15 days.
Muli | Fajardo | Gran | Nograles | Fabia K | Zaragosa | Ang | Siron | Mendoza J | Cajucom | Raso | Hipolito
D2012
Muli | Fajardo | Gran | Nograles | Fabia K | Zaragosa | Ang | Siron | Mendoza J | Cajucom | Raso | Hipolito
2)
3)
4)
D2012
Muli | Fajardo | Gran | Nograles | Fabia K | Zaragosa | Ang | Siron | Mendoza J | Cajucom | Raso | Hipolito
D2012
(8) SANDOVAL V. CA
FACTS: This is another dispute over land ownership. The
subject property is a parcel of land on which a five-door
apartment building stands, located at No. 88 Halcon Street,
Quezon City, for which a TCT was issued in the name of
private respondent Lorenzo Tan, Jr.
In October 1984, Tan was asked to present his owners
copy of the TCT to the RD of QC in connection with an
adverse claim. He explained however that he was still
looking for his copy of the TCT. A month after, he discovered
that the adverse claim of one Godofredo Valmeo had been
annotated on his title. Apparently, a Lorenzo Tan, Jr.,
obviously an impostor, had mortgaged the property to
Valmeo to secure a loan. Thereafter, the real Tan sued for
the cancellation of the annotation of mortgage and damages
against Almeda and Valmeo.
In 1985, Tan met with petitioner Juan Sandoval who
claimed to be the new owner of the site of the property. It
was discovered that as early as September 1984, someone
purporting to be Tan sod the property to Almeda in a Deed of
Sale of Registered Land with Pacto de Retro. Said person
also apparently executed a waiver in favor of Almeda, which
caused the cancellation of the TCT in Tans name and its
issuance in Almedas. Later on, Almeda sold the property to
petitioner for Php230, 000; a TCT was issued in Sandovals
name.
Tan alleged that petitioner had prior knowledge of the
legal flaws, which tainted Almedas title. Petitioner
countered that he was a purchaser in good faith and for
valuable consideration. He bought the land through real
estate brokers whom he contacted after seeing the property
advertised in an issue of the Manila Bulletin. Upon
guarantees of the brokers and his lawyers go-signal, he
Muli | Fajardo | Gran | Nograles | Fabia K | Zaragosa | Ang | Siron | Mendoza J | Cajucom | Raso | Hipolito
D2012
Muli | Fajardo | Gran | Nograles | Fabia K | Zaragosa | Ang | Siron | Mendoza J | Cajucom | Raso | Hipolito
D2012
c.
(12) CABRERA V. CA
FACTS: The subject of the controversy is a parcel of land in
Cainta, Rizal. It was originally owned by the Spouses
Gonzaga, presumably with conjugal funds. Their
grandchildren, the private respondents claim the property
by right of succession. On the other hand, Cabrera, the
D2012
(13) PINO V. CA
FACTS: A parcel of land in Echague, Isabela was bought by
spouses Juan and Rafaela Gaffud in 1924. On 1936 Juan
died. The land was registered on 1938 and an OCT was
issued in favor of Rafaela and his 2 sons Raymundo and
Cicero as co-owners. The lot was sold to Rafaela through a
Deed of Transfer which cancelled the OCT and in lieu thereof
a TCT was issued in the name of Rafaela. On 1967, Rafaela
sold a portion of the lot to Pascua which caused the
subdivision of the lot to Lot-A and Lot-B which was issued its
corresponding TCTs. On 1970, Rafaela sold the Lot-B to
Felicisima Pino evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute
Sale. It was registered and the corresponding TCT was
Muli | Fajardo | Gran | Nograles | Fabia K | Zaragosa | Ang | Siron | Mendoza J | Cajucom | Raso | Hipolito
D2012
Muli | Fajardo | Gran | Nograles | Fabia K | Zaragosa | Ang | Siron | Mendoza J | Cajucom | Raso | Hipolito
Muli | Fajardo | Gran | Nograles | Fabia K | Zaragosa | Ang | Siron | Mendoza J | Cajucom | Raso | Hipolito
D2012