J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0011: MILAGROSA JOCSON VS. NELSON SAN MIGUEL (G.R. No. 206941, 09 MARCH 2016, REYES J.) (SUBJECT/S: FRESH PERIOD RULE; APPEALS IN DARAB CASES; RIGHT TO APPEAL) (BRIEF TITLE: JOCSON VS. SAN MIGUEL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated October 29, 2012 and Resolution dated April 16, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 122007 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Orders dated July 27, 2011 and October 18, 2011 of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator are hereby REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.”                                                                          

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS THE FRESH PERIOD RULE?

“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 cour” according to the Decision of the CA.

SAN MIGUEL FILED ITS APPEAL UNDER THE FRESH PERIOD RULE. DARAB RULED THAT SUCH RULE DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE CASE WAS FILED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE 2009 DARAB RULES WHICH ADOPTED THE FRESH PERIOD RULE. IS CA CORRECT?

NO.  THE 2009 DARAB RULES PROVIDES THAT THE FRESH PERIOD RULE IS NOT RETROACTIVE.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE FRESH PERIOD RULE?

ACCORDING TO THE CA DECISION, THE PURPOSE IS to standardize the appeal period provided in the Rules of Court and do away with the confusion as to when the 15-day appeal period should be counted. Thus, the 15-day period to appeal is no longer interrupted by the filing of a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration. Litigants today need not concern themselves with counting the balance of the 15-day period to appeal since the 15-day period is now counted from receipt of the order dismissing a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration or any final order or resolution.

THE FRESH PERIOD RULE WAS ENUNCIATED IN THE NEYPES CASE. WHAT DOES THIS CASE SAYS:

The “fresh period rule” in Neypes declares:

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.

Henceforth, this “fresh period rule” shall also apply to Rule 40 governing appeals from the Municipal Trial Courts to the Regional Trial Courts; Rule 42 on petitions for review from the Regional Trial Courts to the [CA]; Rule 43 on appeals from quasi-judicial agencies to the [CA]; and Rule 45 governing appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. The new rule aims to regiment or make the appeal period uniform, to be counted from receipt of the order denying the motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration (whether full or partial) or any final order or resolution.

DOES THE NEYPES RULING APPLY TO THIS CASE?

NO. THE PRESENT CASE IS ADMINISTRATIVE. THE NEYPES RULING APPLIES ONLY TO JUDICIAL APPEALS AND NOT TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS.

“Petitioner’s present case is administrative in nature involving an appeal from the decision or order of the DENR regional office to the DENR Secretary. Such appeal is indeed governed by Section 1 of Administrative Order No. 87, Series of 1990. As earlier quoted, Section 1 clearly provides that if the motion for reconsideration is denied, the movant shall perfect his appeal “during the remainder of the period of appeal, reckoned from receipt of the resolution of denial;” whereas if the decision is reversed, the adverse party has a fresh 15-day period to perfect his appeal.34 (Citation omitted and emphasis ours)”

“The same principle was applied in the recent case of San Lorenzo Ruiz Builders and Developers Group, Inc. and Oscar Violago v. Ma. Cristina F. Bayang,35 wherein this Court reiterated that the “fresh period rule” in Neypes applies only to judicial appeals and not to administrative appeals.”

WHAT IS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL?

THE RIGHT TO APPEAL IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT OR PART OF DUE PROCESS BUT IS MERELY A STATUTORY PRIVILEGE.

“As a final note, it is worthy to emphasize that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but is merely a statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law. The right is unavoidably forfeited by the litigant who does not comply with the manner thus prescribed. In addition, the liberal application of rules of procedure for perfecting appeals is still the exception, and not the rule; and it is only allowed in exceptional circumstances to better serve the interest of justice.36 This exceptional situation, however, does not obtain in this case.”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0011-JOCSON 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0010: ESTATE OF DR. JUVENCIO P. ORTANEZ, REPRESENTED BY DIVINA ORTANEZ-ENDERES, LIGAYA NOVICIO, AND CESAR ORTANEZ VERSUS  JOSE C. LEE, BENJAMIN C. LEE, CARMENCITA TAN, ANGEL ONG, MA. PAZ CASAL-LEE, JOHN OLIVER PASCUAL, CONRADO CRUZ, JR., BRENDA ORTANEZ, AND JULIE ANN PARADO AND JOHN DOES (G.R. NO. 184251, 30 MARCH 2016, PEREZ, J.) (SUBJECT/S: EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION OF ESTATE EXCLUDING HEIRS INVALIDATE SUBSEQUENT SALE; PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE) (BRIEF TITLE: ESTATE OF ORTANEZ VS. JOSE C. LEE ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

EXTRA-JUDICIAL PARTITION OF ESTATE KNOWINGLY EXCLUDING HEIRS IS INVALID. SUBSEQUENT SALE ALSO INVALID.

“We observed in the aforesaid decision that Juliana Ortafiez (Juliana) and her three sons invalidly entered into a Memorandum of Agreement extra-judicially partitioning the intestate estate among themselves, despite their knowledge that there were other heirs or claimants to the Estate and before the final settlement of the Estate by the intestate court. Since the appropriation of the estate properties was invalid, the subsequent sale thereof by Juliana and Lee to a third party (FLAG), without court approval, was likewise void.”

PETITIONERS FAILED TO PRESENT THE REQUIRED PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE

“From the foregoing facts and based on a careful evaluation of the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that petitioners indeed failed to present the required preponderance of evidence to prove their allegation in the complaint that they represented more than 51 o/o of the outstanding capital stock of Philinterlife during the annual stockholders’ meeting held on 15 March 2006.

Clearly, the core issue to be resolved in the present case is simply on whether respondents were validly elected as Board of Directors during the annual stockholders’ meeting of Phi linter life held on 15 March 2006. We agree with the courts below that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that the respondents were duly elected as directors/officers of Philinterlife during the aforesaid annual stockholders’ meeting. Petitioners cannot, in the instant election contest case, question the increases in the capital stocks of the corporation.”

 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0010-ORTANEZ

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0009: CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. ET AL VS. MA. FLOR A. SINGZON AGUIRRE ET AL. (G.R. NOS. 170746-47, 09 MARCH 2016, REYES, J.) (SUBJECT/S: PRESCRIPTION; FINALITY OF JUDGMENT; VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE AS SUBSTITUTE TO RECEIPT OF SUMMONS) (BRIEF TITLE: CALTEX ET AL VS AGUIRRE ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the petition is denied for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS PRESCRIPTION?

“The Court shall first discuss the prescription of the respondents’ cause of action against the petitioners.  Article 1106 of the Civil Code provides that “[b]y prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions laid down by law. In the same way, rights and conditions are lost by prescription.”  The first sentence refers to acquisitive prescription, which is a mode of “acquisition of ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions provided by law.”  The second sentence pertains to extinctive prescription “whereby rights and actions are lost by the lapse of time.”38  It is also called limitation of action.39   This case involves the latter type of prescription, the purpose of which is to protect the diligent and vigilant, not the person who sleeps on his rights, forgetting them and taking no trouble of exercising them one way or another to show that he truly has such rights.40  The rationale behind the prescription of actions is to suppress fraudulent and stale claims from springing up at great distances of time when all the proper vouchers and evidence are lost or the facts have become obscure from the lapse of time or defective memory or death or removal of witnesses.”

PRESCRIPTION CAN BE WAIVED BUT IT CAN NO LONGER BE WAIVED IF THERE IS ALREADY A FINAL JUDGMENT?

“The Court has previously held that the right to prescription may be waived or renounced pursuant to Article 1112 of the Civil Code:46

Art. 1112. Persons with capacity to alienate property may renounce prescription already obtained, but not the right to prescribe in the future.

Prescription is deemed to have been tacitly renounced when the renunciation results from acts which imply the abandonment of the right acquired.

In the instant case, not only once did the petitioners expressly renounce their defense of prescription.  Nonetheless, the Court cannot consider such waiver as basis in order to reverse the rulings of the courts below as the dismissal of the complaint had become final and binding on both the petitioners and the respondents.”

RESPONDENT CALTEX SAID THE FINAL JUDGMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT SERVED SUMMONS. IS THEIR CONTENTION CORRECT?

NO. THEIR FILING OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CONSTITUTES  VOLUNTARY APPEARANCE. THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED THEMSELVES TO THE COURT’S JURISDICTION.

“It is not contested that the petitioners were not served with summons by the RTC of Catbalogan prior to the motu proprio dismissal of the respondents’ complaint.  It is basic that courts acquire jurisdiction over the persons of defendants or respondents, by a valid service of summons or through their voluntary submission.47  Not having been served with summons, the petitioners were not initially considered as under the jurisdiction of the court.  However, the petitioners voluntarily submitted themselves under the jurisdiction of the RTC of Catbalogan by filing their motion for reconsideration.   Section 20, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Court states:

Sec. 20. Voluntary appearance. – The defendant’s voluntary appearance in the action shall be equivalent to service of summons.  The inclusion in a motion to dismiss of other grounds aside from lack of jurisdiction over the person of the defendant shall not be deemed a voluntary appearance.

In Philippine Commercial International Bank v. Spouses Dy Hong Pi, et al.,48 the Court explained the following:

(1)  Special appearance operates as an exception to the general rule on voluntary appearance;

(2)  Accordingly, objections to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant must be explicitly made, i.e., set forth in an unequivocal manner; and

(3)  Failure to do so constitutes voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, especially in instances where a pleading or motion seeking affirmative relief is filed and submitted to the court for resolution.49”

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0009-CALTEX

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.