Hongria v. Hongria-Juarde
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Epitacia Hongria-Juarde filed an action for forcible entry against petitioner Ruben Hongria and others, averring that they unlawfully entered her property, a parcel of coconut land with an area of 6.6138 hectares, and deprived her of possession and fruits. Petitioner countered that he acquired the property in good faith and for value from his grandfather and that respondent was never in possession nor the owner. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of petitioner. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65, Bulan, Sorsogon, reversed the MTC decision, declaring defendants as prior physical possessors and ordering plaintiff to vacate and relinquish possession. Respondent moved for reconsideration, which was denied. She then filed a motion for inhibition and reconsideration of the denial order, which was also denied. Respondent, through new counsel, filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). The Petition: The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision and reinstated the MTC ruling. Petitioner Ruben Hongria sought relief from the Supreme Court, contending that the CA should not have entertained respondent's petition for review as it was filed out of time.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for review filed before the Court of Appeals by respondent Epitacia Hongria-Juarde was filed within the reglementary period. Whether the Regional Trial Court's decision had become final and executory prior to the filing of the petition for review.
Ruling
The Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of the Regional Trial Court. No special pronouncement on costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the reglementary period for filing the petition for review: The Court found merit in the petition, holding that the petition for review filed before the Court of Appeals by respondent Epitacia Hongria-Juarde was indeed filed beyond the reglementary period. Respondent received the Regional Trial Court's decision on September 10, 2001. She filed a motion for reconsideration on September 12, 2001. This motion was denied by the Regional Trial Court in an order dated January 14, 2002, which respondent received on January 22, 2002. According to Section 1, Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a party has fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision or of the denial of a motion for new trial or reconsideration to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the reglementary period for filing the petition for review should have been on or before February 6, 2002. However, the petition for review was posted on April 18, 2002, which is clearly beyond the prescribed period. On the issue of whether the Regional Trial Court's decision had become final and executory: The Court ruled that the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court had long become final and executory when the petition for review was ultimately posted on April 18, 2002. The Court noted that the "Motion for Inhibition & Reconsideration of the Order Dated 14th January 2002 Received 22 January 2002" filed by respondent with the Regional Trial Court was in the nature of a second motion for reconsideration. Such a pleading is prohibited under the rules, and its filing does not toll or interrupt the running of the reglementary period for appeal. Consequently, the period for filing the appeal continued to run from the receipt of the order denying the first motion for reconsideration.
Main Doctrine
A second motion for reconsideration, filed without leave of court, is a prohibited pleading and does not toll the reglementary period for appeal. The filing of a petition for review beyond the reglementary period renders the decision of the lower court final and executory.