AI-generated
Updated 21st February 2025
Alma Jose vs. Javellana
The Supreme Court affirmed that the denial of a motion for reconsideration of an order granting a motion to dismiss is a final, not interlocutory order, as it conclusively terminates the matter. Under the "fresh period rule," a party has 15 days from notice of denial to appeal.

Background

In 1979, Margarita Marquez Alma Jose sold two parcels of land to Ramon Javellana through a deed of conditional sale for ₱160,000. The agreement required Margarita to register the land under the Torrens System, with her children (Juvenal and Priscilla) authorized to receive the balance payment and proceed with registration if she became incapacitated.

History

  • February 10, 1997 - Javellana filed action for specific performance (Civil Case No. 79-M-97)

  • February 4, 1998 - RTC initially denied motion to dismiss

  • June 24, 1999 - RTC reversed and granted motion to dismiss

  • June 21, 2000 - RTC denied motion for reconsideration

  • CA-G.R. CV No. 68259 - Appeal filed by Javellana

  • CA-G.R. SP No. 60455 - Petition for certiorari filed by Javellana

  • November 20, 2002 - CA reversed RTC's dismissal

  • May 9, 2003 - CA denied motion for reconsideration

  • January 25, 2012 - Supreme Court decision

Facts

  • 1. Margarita sold two parcels of land to Javellana for ₱160,000
  • 2. Initial payment of ₱80,000 was made upon execution
  • 3. Balance was payable upon registration under Torrens System
  • 4. After Margarita's death and Juvenal's prior death, Priscilla inherited the obligation
  • 5. Priscilla began improving the properties instead of registering them
  • 6. Javellana filed for specific performance, claiming full payment had been made
  • 7. Priscilla filed a motion to dismiss, citing prescription and lack of cause of action

Arguments of the Petitioners

  • 1. June 21, 2000 RTC order was not appealable
  • 2. Notice of appeal was filed three days late
  • 3. Javellana committed forum shopping
  • 4. Complaint stated no cause of action
  • 5. Action had prescribed

Arguments of the Respondents

  • 1. June 21, 2000 RTC order was appealable as final order
  • 2. Appeal was perfected on time
  • 3. No forum shopping as petition for certiorari raised different issues
  • 4. Evidence of full payment not necessary at motion to dismiss stage
  • 5. Facts in complaint should be hypothetically admitted

Issues

  • 1. Whether the denial of motion for reconsideration is appealable
  • 2. Whether the appeal was filed within the prescribed period
  • 3. Whether Javellana committed forum shopping

Ruling

  • 1. Denial of motion for reconsideration was appealable as final order
  • 2. Fresh period rule applies, giving 15 days from notice of denial
  • 3. No forum shopping as appeal and certiorari had different objectives

Doctrines

  • 1. Fresh Period Rule (Neypes v. CA) - Allows fresh 15-day period to appeal from notice of denial of motion for reconsideration
  • 2. Final vs. Interlocutory Orders - Final order disposes of subject matter entirely; interlocutory order leaves something for future determination
  • 3. Forum Shopping Doctrine - Requires identity of parties, rights/causes of action, and reliefs sought

Precedents Cited

  • 1. Neypes v. Court of Appeals - Established fresh period rule
  • 2. Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo - Distinguished final from interlocutory orders
  • 3. Young v. Sy - Forum shopping precedent
  • 4. Quelnan v. VHF Philippines, Inc. - Clarified appealability of denial of motion for reconsideration

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

  • 1. Rules of Court, Rule 41, Section 1 - Appeals from final orders
  • 2. Rules of Court, Rule 41, Section 3 - Period of ordinary appeal
  • 3. Civil Code, Article 1911 - Referenced in arguments regarding agency