G.R. No.

L-51841

June 30, 1987

REMIGIO QUIQUI, EMILIANO Q. ARELLANO, TURCUATA Q. DIPUTADO,

APOLONIA Q. SALCEDOR, LORETO QUIQUI, SUPLICIA Q. CHAN,
ELDEGUNDA Q. MONASTERIO, ELSA Q. ARBON, and ANTIPAS Q. YANG,
Petitioners,
-versusThe Honorable Judge ALEJANDRO R. BONCAROS of Branch V, Court of First
Instance of Negros Oriental, ESTEFANIA G. AMOLO, LOPE AMOLO, SOFIA G. ALBON,
PASTOR GADINGAN, ANGEL GADINGAN, ANTERO GADINGAN, TEOFILO GADINGAN,
and FELICITAS GADINGAN,
Respondents.
X-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

FACTS:
1. The petition is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, which concerns a parcel
of land situated in Barangay Cabangan, Siaton, Negors Oriental with an area of 450 square
meters.
2. Said parcel of land is a portion of Lot No. 3217, Pls-659-D covered by Free Patent Title No.
FV-1703.
3. On May 22, 1973, herein respondents were able to secure Free Patent Title No. FV-1703 in
their names, and the 450 sq.m. parcel of land was included in the survey of the entire parcel
of land covered by said Title.
4. Herein petitioners contend that the parcel of land in question belongs to them as the same
was purchased by their father sometime in 1920 and they have been in actual possession
thereof, peacefully, openly continuously and adversely for a period of 56 years already.
5. On November 9, 1976, petitioners filed a Complaint in the Court of First Instance of Negros
Oriental for reconveyance and/or annulment of Title with damages against the private
respondents.
6. In the course of proceedings of the complaint, an Order dated July 16, 1979 was issued by
the trial court, with respondent Judge Alejandro R. Boncaros, presiding, dismissing the
Complaint on the ground that it had no jurisdiction over the case, and the counsel for the
petitioners received a copy of the said Order on July 17, 1979.
7. On August 17, 1979 (31 days after receipt by the counsel of the petitioners of the Order),
the petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the trial court dismissing
the complaint.
8. Private respondents opposed petitioners Motion for Reconsideration, stating that the same
had been filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period under the Rules, and asserting that
since the Motion was filed beyond the 30-day period, the Order of dismissal has become
final and executory, and could no longer be the subject of a Motion for Reconsideration.
9. The trial court denied petitioners Motion for Reconsideration on the grounds asserted by
respondents.
10. On August 23, 1979, the petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal seeking relief from the Court of
Appeals but the same was denied by the trial court.
11. Finding the action of the trial court unsatisfactory, the petitioners brought their case directly
to the Supreme Court by way of this petition.

ISSUES:
1. WHETHER OR NOT, the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of the trial court filed by
the petitioners on August 17, 1979 was properly dismissed by the trial court on the grounds
that the same had been filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period.
RULING:
1. According to Section 3, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, an appeal may be taken by serving
upon the adverse party and filing with the trial court within thirty (30) days from notice of
order or judgment. Petitioners, admitting that they received their copy of the Order of
dismissal of their Complaint on July 17, 1979, had 30 days within which to appeal their case,
the 30th day falling on August 16, 1979;
2. Since petitioners filed their appeal or Motion for Reconsideration on August 17, 2015, one
day late from the last day of filing, the order of the trial court has become final and
executory and is beyond the reach of such Motion for Reconsideration;
3. The Notice of Appeal was properly denied as the perfection of an appeal in the manner and
within the period laid down by law is mandatory.
4. Petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.