Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82928:56809&catid=1582&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:17:14+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 181949, April 23, 2014 - HEIRS OF FRANCISCO BIHAG, NAMELY: ALEJANDRA BIHAG, NICOMEDES B. BIHAG, VERONICA B. ACOSTA, SUSANA B. MIÑOZA, PAULINO B. BIHAG, DANILO B. BIHAG, TIMOTEO B. BIHAG JR., EDILBERTO B. BIHAG, JOSEPHINE B. MIÑOZA, AND MA. FE B. ARDITA,*, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF NICASIO BATHAN, NAMELY: PRIMITIVA B. BATHAN AND DUMININA B. GAMALIER,**Respondent.
HEIRS OF FRANCISCO BIHAG, NAMELY: ALEJANDRA BIHAG, NICOMEDES B. BIHAG, VERONICA B. ACOSTA, SUSANA B. MIÑOZA, PAULINO B. BIHAG, DANILO B. BIHAG, TIMOTEO B. BIHAG JR., EDILBERTO B. BIHAG, JOSEPHINE B. MIÑOZA, AND MA. FE B. ARDITA,*, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF NICASIO BATHAN, NAMELY: PRIMITIVA B. BATHAN AND DUMININA B. GAMALIER,**Respondent.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari2 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assails the October 26, 20073 and January 14, 20084 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA–G.R. SP No. 03019.
On the same day, the RTC issued a TRO16 against respondents for a period of 20 days, pending the resolution of petitioners’ application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
Respondents, in their Answer,17 denied the material allegations of the Complaint and interposed the defenses of lack of cause of action and laches. They claimed that respondent spouses already owned the land when it was mortgaged to the Rural Bank of Mandaue City in the 1960’s.18 They alleged that in 1956, Francisco borrowed money from Primitiva using the tax declarations of the land as collateral;19 that he failed to pay the loan;20 and thus, in 1959, he verbally sold the land to respondent spouses.21 Respondents insisted that petitioners knew about the sale,22 as evidenced by the Extra–Judicial Declaration of Heirs with Deed of Sale,23 which was signed by some of the petitioners in 1984.
On June 2, 1992, the RTC issued an Order25 granting petitioners’ application for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
Foregoing considered, the Court decides in favor of the [respondents].
3. Plaintiffs to pay moral damages of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00); Attorney’s fees of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) as well as litigation expenses in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).
A reading of the Notice of Appeal will show that [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 (10) days. Thus, the Notice of Appeal was filed after the lapse of [the] fifteen (15) days reglementary period or to be exact after the lapse of eighteen (18) days.
[Based] on the case cited above, [petitioners] only [have] (7) seven days from the date of receipt of the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration to file the Notice of Appeal.
Considering that the Notice of Appeal was filed on the 15th day from receipt of the Order denying Motion for Reconsideration which is beyond the reglementary period to file the Notice of Appeal, the same is DENIED due course.
Thereafter, respondents filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution,34 which petitioners did not oppose.
On October 10, 2007, petitioners filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction37 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
On October 26, 2007, the CA issued a Resolution38 dismissing the Petition for being insufficient in form and substance. It found that the Petition failed to indicate the material dates as required under Section 3,39 Rule 46 of the Rules of Court; that no prior motion for reconsideration was taken; that one of the petitioners, Jorge T. Bihag, failed to sign the verification and certification of non–forum shopping; that the verification appended to the Petition was a photocopy; that affiants failed to indicate the date of issue of their Community Tax Certificate; and that petitioners failed to submit the certified true copy of the RTC’s April 24, 2007 Order, granting the issuance of a Writ of Execution.
Aggrieved, petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration40 attaching a copy of the RTC’s August 24, 2007 Order and explaining that no motion for reconsideration was filed since they never received a copy of the RTC’s January 5, 2007 Order, denying their Notice of Appeal.
On January 14, 2008, the CA issued a Resolution42 denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners for lack of merit.
Acting on petitioners’ application for Preliminary Injunction, this Court, in its April 2, 2008 Resolution,44 issued a TRO enjoining respondents from implementing the May 2, 2007 Writ of Execution issued by the RTC in Civil Case No. MAN–1311.
Anent petitioners’ alleged non–receipt of the January 5, 2007 Order, respondents insist that this is belied by the Certification issued by the assistant postmaster certifying that on January 22, 2007, the receiving clerk of the office of petitioners’ counsel received a copy of the January 5, 2007 Order.50 Respondents further contend that even if petitioners did not receive a copy of the said Order, they should have at least opposed the Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Execution filed by respondents or moved for a reconsideration of the RTC’s April 24, 2007 Order granting respondents’ Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution.51 Failing to do so, petitioners lost the right to question the RTC’s Orders.52 Thus, the CA correctly dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by petitioners under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
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 in the RTC.
In light of the foregoing jurisprudence, we agree with petitioners that their Notice of Appeal was timely filed as they had a fresh 15–day period from the time they received the Order denying their Motion for Reconsideration within which to file their Notice of Appeal.
The January 5, 2007 Order has attained finality.
In view of the foregoing, we find no error on the part of the CA in denying the Petition for Certiorari.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The assailed October 26, 2007 and January 14, 2008 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. SP No. 03019 are hereby AFFIRMED.
The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Court on April 2, 2008 is hereby LIFTED.
* Also referred to as Ma. Fe Bihag in some parts of the records.
** Also referred to as Dominina B. Gamalier in some parts of the records.
1Gallardo–Corro v. Gallardo, 403 Phil. 498, 511 (2001).
3 CA rollo, pp. 75–76; penned by Associate Justice Pampio A. Abarintos and concurred in by Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Amy C. Lazaro–Javier.
6 Records, Volume 1, pp. 1–6.
7 Due to his untimely demise, defendant Nicasio was substituted by his heirs; id. at 98–99.
16 Id. at 10; penned by Judge Mercedes Gozo–Dadole.
23 Id. at 23 (unnotarized).
25 Id. at 38–39; penned by Judge Mercedes Gozo–Dadole.
26 Id., Volume 3, pp. 553–574; penned by Presiding Judge Augustine A. Vestil.
37 CA rollo, pp. 2–9.
Lastly, the petitioners did not submit the certified true copy of the Order dated 24 April 2007 of the public respondent granting the issuance of a writ of execution.
39 Section 3. Contents and filing of petition; effect of noncompliance with requirements. — The petition shall contain the full names and actual addresses of all the petitioners and respondents, a concise statement of the matters involved, the factual background of the case, and the grounds relied upon for the relief prayed for.
The failure of the petitioner to comply any of the requirements shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal of the petition.
40 CA rollo, pp. 77–81.
45 506 Phil. 613, 626 (2005).
53Reyes v. Court of Appeals, supra note 45.
54Heirs of the late Flor Tungpalan v. Court of Appeals, 499 Phil. 384, 389 (2005).
56 Bernarte v. Philippine Basketball Association (PBA), G.R. No. 192084, September 14, 2011, 657 SCRA 745, 753.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.