Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Neypes Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Bayongman
    Neypes filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of their complaint regarding land titles, which was denied. They then filed a notice of appeal 5 days after receiving the denial, but it was rejected as untimely. The Court of Appeals also dismissed, saying the appeal period was from the initial dismissal, not the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court then established the "Fresh Period Rule", allowing a new 15-day period to file an appeal starting from the denial of a motion for reconsideration or new trial. It found that Neypes had filed their notice of appeal timely within this new 15-day period. The rule applies to motions for reconsideration, new trial, or any final order

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Neypes Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Bayongman
    28 views1 page
    Neypes filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of their complaint regarding land titles, which was denied. They then filed a notice of appeal 5 days after receiving the denial, but it was rejected as untimely. The Court of Appeals also dismissed, saying the appeal period was from the initial dismissal, not the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court then established the "Fresh Period Rule", allowing a new 15-day period to file an appeal starting from the denial of a motion for reconsideration or new trial. It found that Neypes had filed their notice of appeal timely within this new 15-day period. The rule applies to motions for reconsideration, new trial, or any final order

    Original Description:

    CrimPro

    Original Title

    Neypes vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Neypes filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of their complaint regarding land titles, which was denied. They then filed a notice of appeal 5 days after receiving the denial, but it was rejected as untimely. The Court of Appeals also dismissed, saying the appeal period was from the initial dismissal, not the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court then established the "Fresh Period Rule", allowing a new 15-day period to file an appeal starting from the denial of a motion for reconsideration or new trial. It found that Neypes had filed their notice of appeal timely within this new 15-day period. The rule applies to motions for reconsideration, new trial, or any final order

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    28 views1 page

    Neypes Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Bayongman
    Neypes filed a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of their complaint regarding land titles, which was denied. They then filed a notice of appeal 5 days after receiving the denial, but it was rejected as untimely. The Court of Appeals also dismissed, saying the appeal period was from the initial dismissal, not the denial of the motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court then established the "Fresh Period Rule", allowing a new 15-day period to file an appeal starting from the denial of a motion for reconsideration or new trial. It found that Neypes had filed their notice of appeal timely within this new 15-day period. The rule applies to motions for reconsideration, new trial, or any final order

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    NEYPES vs CA (The infamous Fresh Period Rule)

    FACTS:
    Neypes filed an action for annulment of judgment and titles of land,
    reconveyance and reversion with preliminary injunction against the Bureau of
    Lands, et. al.
    o RTC dismissed petitioners complain. Prescription daw.
    o On the 15th day after receiving the order of dismissal, Neypes filed an MR.
    o Petitioner received the denial of their MR on July 22.
    5 days after receiving the denial of MR, July 27, Neypes filed a notice of appeal.
    o It was denied because apparently it was filed 8 days late.
    o An MR was again denied.
    Neypes filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 with the CA.
    Assailing the dismissal of the notice of appeal.
    o CA DISMISSED.
    o CA reasoned that the 15-day period to appeal should be reckoned from
    March 3, the day they received the order of dismissal.
    RTC received the notice of appeal on July 31. It was 8 days late
    counted from July 23, which was the last day to file the notice of
    appeal kasi daw 1 day left nalang ang meron sila. Kasi nga on the
    15th day sila nag file ng MR sa UNANG DISMISSAL dahil sa
    Prescription.
    ISSUE: Whether the period to file a notice of appeal should be reckoned from the first
    order of dismissal?
    RULING: NO!
    To standardize the appeal period, the Supreme Court deems it practical to allow a fresh
    period of 15 days within which to file the notice of appeal in the RTC, counted from the
    receipt of the order dismissing a MNT or MR. This Fresh Period Rule apply to Rule 40,
    42, 43 and 45, counted from receipt of the order denying the MNT, MR (full or partial) or
    any final order of resolution. Neypes seasonably filed their notice of appeal within the
    fresh period of 15 days, counted from July 22, 1998.
    The fresh period of 15 days becomes significant only when a party opts to file a MNT or
    MR.
    To recapulate, a party litigant may either file his notice of appeal within 15 days from
    receipt of the RTC decision or file it within 15 days from receipt of the final order denying
    his MNT or MR. The 15-day period may be availed of only if either motion is filed;
    otherwise, the decision becomes final and executor after the lapse of the original period
    provided in Rule 41.

    You might also like