Ramirez v. Elomina GR No.

202661

LETICIA RAMIREZ V. FELOMINO ELOMINA

G.R. NO. 202661 | MARCH 17, 2021
PERIOD TO EXTEND THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

DOCTRINE
The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a
statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions
of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the
Rules. Failure to do so leads to the loss of the right to appeal. Settled is the rule that anyone seeking
exemption from the application of the reglementary period for filing an appeal has the burden of
proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious instances warranting such deviation.
SUMMARY:
Ramirez admits having committed the procedural infraction of filing a Motion for
Reconsideration belatedly but asks for the relaxation of the rules. She explains that the inadvertent
late filing of the said motion with the appellate court was due to forgetfulness in view of her old age
and frail condition
FACTS
On May 11, 1994, Ramirez was issued an Original Certificate of Title (OCT) pursuant to Free
Patent granted on May 2, 1994 over a lot in Laguna. On July 11, 2000, Felomino filed a letter-protest
against the approval of the application and issuance of the free patent to Ramirez. On Dec. 29, 2003,
the Regional Executive Director issued an order cancelling and revoking the free patent of Ramirez.
Ramirez’s application for free patent was found as having been tainted with misrepresentations
constituting fraud and rendered void.
On Dec. 12, 2005, Felomino sued for reconveyance of title and damages before the RTC,
Binan, Laguna against Ramirez and the Registry of Deeds of Calamba City, Laguna. Ramirez filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground of forum-shopping but the trial court denied the motion to dismiss.
RTC ruled that the cause of action had already prescribed. Ramirez’s OCT was issued in May 1994
while Felomino filed the action more than 10 years later or in December 2005. The trial court held
that an action for reconveyance resulting from fraud prescribes in four years from discovery, which
was deemed to have taken place when the property was registered in 1994. Felomino moved for
reconsideration. In the Nov. 14, 2008 order, the trial court denied Felomino’s Motion for
Reconsideration on the ground that the action has already prescribed and that he is not the real
party in interest, since he is neither an applicant nor a registered owner of the Subject land.
Felomino appealed but in the appellate court’s decision in Oct. 12, 2011, the judgment of the
trial court was reversed. Ramirez received a copy of the decision on Oct. 17, 2011. After 17 days
from receipt thereof, or on Nov. 3, 2011, she filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In a Resolution on
Dec. 21, 2011, the appellate court denied the said Motion for late filing and therefore its jurisdiction
to act on it had been lost. Thus, in a Resolution on May 25, 2012, the appellate court ordered the
issuance of an Entry of Judgment and noted that on Jan. 19, 2012, its Oct. 12, 2011 decision had
become final and executory. Thereafter, Ramirez filed the instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule
75 of the Rules of Court with prayer for the issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of
Preliminary injunction.
ISSUE
Did the appellate court commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in denying Ramirez’s Motion for Reconsideration for having been filed belatedly?
HELD
No. Sec. 1, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court provides for the period to file a Motion for
Reconsideration: “Section 1. Period of filing. – A party may file a motion for reconsideration of a
judgment or final resolution within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof, with proof of service on
the adverse party.” Rule 36, Section 2 of the same Rules also provides that a judgment or final order
shall become final unless a Motion for Reconsideration is timely filed. In the case at bar, the 15th
day of the allowable period for Ramirez to file her Motion for Reconsideration fell on a holiday, Nov.
1, 2011. Thus, Ramirez had until Nov. 2, 2011 to file the same, reckoned from the date of receipt of
the appellate court’s Decision. However, she filed the Motion the following day, or Nov. 3, 2011.

The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a
statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions
of law. Thus, one who seeks to avail of the right to appeal must comply with the requirements of the
Rules. Failure to do so leads to the loss of the right to appeal. In the case at present, Ramirez admits
having committed the procedural infraction but asks for the relaxation of the rules. She explains
that the inadvertent late filing of the Nov. 3, 2011 Motion for Reconsideration with the appellate
court was due to forgetfulness in view of her old age and frail condition. Settled is the rule that
anyone seeking exemption from the application of the reglementary period for filing an appeal has
the burden of proving the existence of exceptionally meritorious instances warranting such
deviation. Therefore, due to her disregard of the Rules, the appellate court was justified in denying
her motion.