8/13/2019 Apprac Rules 40 41 (Second List)

1/3

8/13/2019 Apprac Rules 40 41 (Second List)

2/3

The denial of Aurora's Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court's January26, 2004 decision was received by her former counsel on May 6, 2004. Sansher motion for extension to file a notice of appeal, with the fresh period ruleunder Neypes, she still has until May 21, 2004 to file her notice of appeal andthus, had timely filed her notice of appeal on May 11, 2004.

6. Rodolfo Canlas, et al. v. Iluminada TabilSept. 25, 2009 | GR No. 184285

Rule 40, Sec 8 CANNOT apply to a case where the MTC has originaljurisdiction and where the case was already decided on its merits.

FACTS:Iluminada Tubil was the owner of a residential lot in Guagua, Pampanga.Rudy, Victoria and Felicidad Canlas erected a house on the aforementionedlot and occupied it as their residential house upon mere tolerance by theowner. Tubil now wanted to use the land fruitfully so demands were made tovacate the lot. Canlas refused so a complaint for unlawful detainer was filedby Tubil before the MTC. Canlas filed a motion to dismiss (MtD) on thegrounds that the MTC was without jurisdiction over the subject matter andthat the parties were not the real parties-in-interest.MtD was denied. Canlas filed an answer stating that they were in open,continuous, and exclusive possession of the land; that Tubils title over theland issued by a Free Patent was dubious; that the action was actuallyaccion publiciana which is beyond MTCs jurisdiction.MTC dismissed the complaint for unlawful detainer on the grounds that Tubilfailed to show that there was mere tolerance. RTC affirmed. Respondent filesa petition for review with the CA which reversed the MTCs decision andordered the RTC to decide on the merits of the case. Canlas now files aMotion for Reconsideration which was denied by the CA. Hence, this petitionfor review on certiorari contending that the RTC does not have original

jurisdiction over the subject matter, thus, it cannot validly decide on themerits pursuant to Rule 40, Section 8, Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Court(RoC).

ISSUE:Whether or not Rule 40, Section 8 is applicable in this case.

HELD:NO. Rule 40, Sec 8, par 2 states that If the case was tried on the merits bythe lower court without jurisdiction over the subject matter, the RTC onappeal shall not dismiss the case if it has original jurisdiction BUT shalldecide the case without prejudice to the admission of amended pleadingsand additional evidence

The SC held that the case was of unlawful detainer to which the MTC hasoriginal jurisdiction over the subject matter, not accion publiciana where theRTC has original jurisdiction.

Having ruled that the MTC acquired jurisdiction, it properly exercised itsdiscretion in dismissing the complaint for failure of the respondent to provemere tolerance by sufficient evidence. Rule 40, Section 8 of the RoC has noapplication in this case.

*Decision of the MTC is reinstated.

RULE 41

1. Judith Yu v. Hon. Rosa Samson-TatadFeb. 9, 2011 | GR No. 170979

Facts:An information for estafa against the petitioner (Judith Yu) was filed with theRTC which convicted the petitioner as charged. Fourteen days later, thepetitioner filed a motion for new trial with the RTC, alleging that shediscovered new and material evidence that would exculpate her of the crimefor which she was convicted. The respondent judge denied the petitioner'smotion for new trial for lack of merit.

The petitioner filed a notice of appeal with the RTC, alleging she had a freshperiod of 15 days from the receipt of the denial of her motion for new trial,within which to file a notice of appeal. The prosecution filed a motion todismiss the appeal fore being belatedly filed and a Motion for execution ofthe decision.

Issue:Does the fresh period rule apply to appeals in criminal cases?

Ruling:Yes, to standardize the appeal period provided in the Rules and do awaywith 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 amotion for new trial or motion for reconsideration, litigants today need notconcern themselves with counting the balance of the 15-day period to appealsince the 15-day period is now counted from the receipt of the orderdismissing a motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration or any finalorder or resolution.

8/13/2019 Apprac Rules 40 41 (Second List)

3/3

3. Magdalena Acosta vs. Hon. Judge PlanJan. 30, 1989 | GR No. L-44466

Facts:

Petitioners filed an accion publiciana against private respondent Magday at

the CFI of Isabela. Believing that as pauper litigants they did not have to

submit a record on appeal, they waited for the trial court to elevate the entire

records of the case to CA (as provided in Section 16, Rule 41 of the Rules of

Court).

On June 16, 1976, respondent Judge dismissed the appeal for failure to file a

record on appeal, hence this petition. Under the Rules of Court then in force,

a record on appeal was indeed required to be filed by a pauper appellant

although it did not have to be printed.

Issue:

Whether or not a timely submission of a record on appeal is required for theperfection of an appeal by a pauper litigant

Held:

NO.

Under B.P. Blg. 129, which has overtaken this case before it could be

decided, a record on appeal is no longer required for the perfection of an

appeal. This law was given retroactive effect.

As held in People v Sumilang, being procedural in nature, those provisions

may be applied retroactively for the benefit of petitioners, as appellants.

'Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as

applicable to actions pending undetermined at the time of their passage.

Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent.'