Rafanan v. Rafanan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs Alejandro Rafanan, Josefina Rafanan, and Ernesto Rafanan initiated a lawsuit against defendants Sixto Rafanan and Maria G. de Rafanan seeking to recover a parcel of land situated in barrio Biday, San Fernando, La Union. The lower court, on July 27, 1953, rendered a judgment in favor of the defendants, declaring them the owners of the disputed property. Procedural History: Plaintiffs' counsel received notice of the judgment on July 30, 1953. They filed a notice of appeal on August 18, 1953, but deposited their cash appeal bond on August 20, 1953, and their record on appeal on September 9, 1953. Consequently, the Court of First Instance dismissed their appeal on October 3, 1953, for being filed out of time. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of this dismissal was denied on November 7, 1953. A subsequent petition for certiorari and mandamus filed with the Supreme Court was dismissed on December 11, 1953. Finally, plaintiffs filed a petition for relief with the lower court on January 7, 1954, seeking to set aside the order dismissing their appeal due to alleged mistake or excusable neglect. The Petition: This appeal stems from the lower court's denial of the plaintiffs' petition for relief, which was filed on January 7, 1954. The plaintiffs sought relief from the October 3, 1953 order that dismissed their appeal. The lower court found the petition for relief to be untimely, as it was filed beyond the sixty-day period prescribed by Rule 38, which commenced upon the plaintiffs' receipt of the dismissal order on October 8, 1953. The plaintiffs argued that their motion for reconsideration suspended this period, but the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the period for filing a petition for relief under Rule 38 is non-extendible and not subject to interruption.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for relief was filed within the reglementary period under Section 3 of Rule 38. Whether the motion for reconsideration filed by the plaintiffs suspended or interrupted the period for filing a petition for relief.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the lower court denying the petition for relief, holding that it was filed out of time. The Court ruled that the period for filing a petition for relief is non-extendible and not subject to interruption.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the petition for relief was filed within the reglementary period: The Court held that the petition for relief was filed out of time. Under Section 3 of Rule 38, a petition for relief must be filed within sixty days after the petitioner learns of the judgment or order complained of, and not beyond six months after such judgment or order was entered. The order dismissing the appeal was received by the plaintiffs-appellants on October 8, 1953. Therefore, they had sixty days from this receipt, or until December 8, 1953, to present their petition for relief. However, their petition was filed only on January 7, 1954, which was thirty days beyond the prescribed period. On the issue of whether the motion for reconsideration suspended or interrupted the period for filing a petition for relief: The Court reiterated its ruling in Palomares, et al. vs. Jimenes, 90 Phil., 773, that the period fixed by Rule 38 is non-extendible and is never interrupted. The Court emphasized that the remedy allowed by Rule 38 is an act of grace, designed to give the aggrieved party another and last chance, and such a party cannot impose conditions or delay its filing. Furthermore, the Court noted that no reason was shown why the alleged excusable negligence was not invoked in the motion for reconsideration filed on October 9, 1953, stressing that the spirit of the Rules of Court requires all available grounds for relief to be invoked at one time, citing Sawit vs. Rodas, 73 Phil., 310. Consequently, the period within which the appellants could have filed their petition for relief was not interrupted or suspended by their motion for reconsideration.
Main Doctrine
A petition for relief under Rule 38 must be filed within the prescribed non-extendible period, which is not interrupted by a motion for reconsideration, and failure to do so renders the petition dismissible.