Republic vs. Asuncion

A motion for reconsideration is not a motion for new trial, and does not require an affidavit of merit, unless it is based on a ground for new trial under Section 1, Rule 37; mere reiteration of prior arguments does not automatically make it pro forma, and a notice of appeal filed within the fresh 15-day period after denial must be given due course.

The Asuncion heirs claimed the Bambang, Bulacan parcels by inheritance, accretion, and long possession under color of title, while the Republic, through the Solicitor General, asserted that the lands were inalienable forest lands of the public domain. A 1953 CFI decision in Civil Case No. 766 had recognized the applicants' ownership by accretion and superior right to possess, and its res judicata effect became a point of contention in the registration proceedings.

On December 29, 1976, Paciencia Gonzales Asuncion and the Heirs of Felipe F. Asuncion applied for registration of nine parcels of land in Bambang, Bulacan, Bulacan, with the then Court of First Instance of Bulacan, docketed as LRC Case No. 3681-M. They alleged registerable titles acquired by inheritance, accretion, and open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession under color of title for at least thirty years. The Republic, represented by the Solicitor General, opposed on the ground that the lands were inalienable forest lands of the public domain within the unclassified area of Bulacan, Bulacan; other persons also opposed.

On November 7, 1986, the trial court granted the applicants' motion to admit an amended application for eleven parcels. On August 30, 1996, the applicants and the other oppositors entered into a compromise agreement. Despite the Solicitor General's opposition that the State was not bound because the lands were not susceptible of private appropriation, the trial court on March 22, 1999 approved the compromise agreement, excluded four parcels from the application, and dismissed the application over two other parcels, Psu-133934 and Psu-138316.

Because the applicants made a voluminous formal offer of evidence, the Solicitor General asked for additional time until July 30, 2001 to file his comment on the formal offer. Meanwhile, on June 29, 2001, the trial court considered the case submitted for decision and, on July 10, 2001, rendered a decision ordering registration of five parcels denominated as Psu-115369, Psu-115615, Psu-115616, Psu-118984, and Psu-121255 (amended). The Solicitor General received his copy of the decision on July 27, 2001.

Five days later, on August 2, 2001, the Solicitor General filed a motion for reconsideration. The trial court denied it on February 26, 2002, ruling that the Solicitor General was in effect seeking a new trial and that the motion was pro forma because it lacked the affidavit of merit required by the second paragraph of Section 2, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court. The Solicitor General received the denial on March 13, 2002 and filed a notice of appeal on March 20, 2002. On April 26, 2002, the trial court dismissed the notice of appeal for being filed out of time.

• Motion for Reconsideration Not a Motion for New Trial: Petitioner argued that its August 1, 2001 motion for reconsideration did not aver grounds for new trial under Section 1, Rule 37, and therefore did not require an affidavit of merit under Section 2, Rule 37.
• Not Pro Forma: Petitioner argued that the motion was not pro forma because it specifically challenged the applicants' failure to rebut the presumption that the land belongs to the State, the trial court's misapplication of accretion, and the res judicata effect of the 1953 CFI decision in Civil Case No. 766.
• Certiorari and Suspension of Rules: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in holding that an erroneous characterization of a motion for reconsideration as pro forma is a mere error of judgment not correctible by certiorari, and that the SC may suspend its rules in view of special and compelling circumstances to review the legal merits of the July 10, 2001 decision.
• Land Registration Merits: Petitioner argued that the trial court erred in concluding that the land is private under Article 457 of the Civil Code, alternatively under Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, and that the land belongs to the State.

• Motion for Reconsideration vs. Motion for New Trial: Whether the CA erred in treating the Solicitor General's motion for reconsideration as a motion for new trial.
• Pro Forma Motion: Whether the CA erred in holding that the Solicitor General's motion for reconsideration was pro forma.
• Notice of Appeal / Fresh Period: Whether the Solicitor General's notice of appeal filed on March 20, 2002, seven days after receipt of the denial on March 13, 2002, was filed within the fresh 15-day period.
• Review of Trial Court Decision: Whether the SC may review, as if also on appeal, the trial court's July 10, 2001 decision in LRC Case No. 3681-M.

• Motion for Reconsideration vs. Motion for New Trial: No. The motion did not aver grounds for new trial under Section 1, Rule 37; it raised deprivation of the right to present evidence and errors of law and fact, which are not new trial grounds.
• Pro Forma Motion: No. Mere reiteration of issues already passed upon does not automatically make a motion for reconsideration pro forma; the motion cited specific documentary evidence, misapplication of accretion, and res judicata, and complied with the Rules.
• Notice of Appeal / Fresh Period: Yes. The motion for reconsideration was not pro forma, so it tolled the reglementary period; the notice filed seven days after receipt of the denial was within the fresh 15-day period.
• Review of Trial Court Decision: No. The Solicitor General had already appealed the trial court's decision by filing a notice of appeal with the trial court, so it could not improperly appeal the same decision to the SC.

• Motion for Reconsideration vs. Motion for New Trial: Under Section 1, Rule 37, a motion for new trial must be based on fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, or newly discovered evidence. A motion for reconsideration is equivalent to a motion for new trial only if based on a ground for new trial. The Solicitor General's motion raised (1) deprivation of the right to present evidence and (2) serious errors of law and fact. These are not valid causes for new trial under Section 1, Rule 37. Hence the trial and appellate courts erred in treating the motion as a motion for new trial.
• Pro Forma Motion: Mere reiteration of issues already passed upon does not automatically make a motion for reconsideration pro forma; what is essential is compliance with the requisites of the Rules. The motion specifically referred to documentary evidence in paragraph 11, alleged misapplication of accretion in paragraph 12, and challenged the res judicata effect of the 1953 CFI decision in paragraph 13. These allegations stressed that the trial court's findings or conclusions were not supported by evidence or contrary to law. The motion was therefore not pro forma, though that did not mean it was meritorious.
• Notice of Appeal / Fresh Period: Because the motion for reconsideration was not pro forma, it tolled the reglementary period to appeal. The Solicitor General received the denial on March 13, 2002 and filed the notice of appeal on March 20, 2002, seven days later. Under the fresh-period rule cited in Neypes vs. Court of Appeals and Sumaway vs. Urban Bank, Inc., the notice was filed within the fresh 15-day period and deserved to be given due course. Public policy favors giving the appellate court an opportunity to review the trial court's decision on the merits rather than aborting the appeal by a literal application of the pro forma rule, as held in Marikina Valley Dev't. Corp. vs. Hon. Flojo.
• Review of Trial Court Decision: The Solicitor General improperly appealed the trial court's July 10, 2001 decision to the SC because it had already appealed that decision by ordinary appeal when it filed a notice of appeal with the trial court under Rule 41, Section 2(a). In Marikina Valley Dev't. Corp. vs. Hon. Flojo, the SC directed the trial court to give due course to the notice of appeal. The case was therefore remanded to the RTC to give due course to the notice of appeal with deliberate dispatch.

• Motion for Reconsideration as Motion for New Trial — A motion for reconsideration is equivalent to a motion for new trial only if it is based on a ground for new trial under Section 1, Rule 37, such as fraud, accident, mistake, excusable negligence, or newly discovered evidence. In this case, the Solicitor General's motion raised deprivation of the right to present evidence and errors of law and fact, so it was not a motion for new trial and did not require an affidavit of merit.
• Pro Forma Motion for Reconsideration — Mere reiteration of issues already passed upon by the court does not automatically make a motion for reconsideration pro forma; what is essential is compliance with the requisites of the Rules. The SC found the motion not pro forma because it cited specific documentary evidence, challenged the application of accretion, and disputed the res judicata effect of the 1953 CFI decision.
• Fresh Period Rule — The denial of a motion for reconsideration gives the aggrieved party a fresh 15-day period to file a notice of appeal. The Solicitor General filed the notice seven days after receiving the denial, so it was timely.
• Public Policy Favoring Appeal on the Merits — Public policy favors giving the appellate court an effective opportunity to review the trial court's decision on the merits rather than aborting the right to appeal by a literal application of the procedural rule on pro forma motions for reconsideration. The SC applied this in setting aside the dismissal of the notice of appeal.
• Ordinary Appeal by Notice of Appeal — A party who has already appealed a trial court decision by filing a notice of appeal with the trial court cannot improperly appeal the same decision to the SC. The SC remanded the case for the trial court to give due course to the notice of appeal.

• "a motion for reconsideration is equivalent to a motion for new trial if based on a ground for new trial." — This states the test the SC used to reject the lower courts' treatment of the Solicitor General's motion as a motion for new trial.
• "Mere reiteration of issues already passed upon by the court does not automatically make a motion for reconsideration pro forma. What is essential is compliance with the requisites of the Rules." — This is the SC's rule for determining whether a motion for reconsideration is pro forma; it supported the finding that the Solicitor General's motion was not pro forma.
• "public policy would be better served by according the appellate court an effective opportunity to review the decision of the trial court on the merits, rather than by aborting the right to appeal by a literal application of the procedural rule relating to pro forma motions for reconsideration." — This explains why the SC set aside the dismissal of the notice of appeal and allowed appellate review on the merits.
• "Since the Solicitor General filed his notice of appeal on March 20, 2002 or seven days after he received the denial of the motion, the notice of appeal was filed within the 'fresh period' of 15 days to file the notice of appeal." — This is the SC's application of the fresh-period rule to hold the notice of appeal timely.

• Marikina Valley Dev't. Corp. vs. Hon. Flojo, 321 Phil. 447, 462 (1995) — Relied on for the public-policy rule favoring appellate review on the merits and for directing the trial court to give due course to the notice of appeal.
• Neypes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, September 14, 2005, 469 SCRA 633, 644-646 — Cited for the fresh 15-day period to file a notice of appeal after denial of a motion for reconsideration.
• Sumaway vs. Urban Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 142534, June 27, 2006, pp. 5-6 — Cited with Neypes for the fresh-period rule.
• Marina Properties Corporation vs. CA, 355 Phil. 705, 716 (1998) — Cited for the rule that mere reiteration of issues already passed upon does not automatically make a motion for reconsideration pro forma; compliance with the Rules is essential.
• Mendoza vs. Bautista, No. L-45885, April 28, 1983, 121 SCRA 760, 768 — Cited for the rule that a motion for reconsideration is equivalent to a motion for new trial if based on a ground for new trial.

• Section 1, Rule 37, Rules of Court — Lists the grounds for new trial: fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and newly discovered evidence. Applied to hold that the Solicitor General's motion for reconsideration, which raised deprivation of the right to present evidence and errors of law and fact, was not a motion for new trial.
• Section 2, Rule 37, Rules of Court — Requires an affidavit of merit for a motion for new trial based on fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, and affidavits of witnesses for newly discovered evidence. Applied to hold that the trial court erred in requiring an affidavit of merit from the Solicitor General's motion for reconsideration.
• Rule 41, Section 2(a), Rules of Court — Provides for ordinary appeal by notice of appeal. Applied to hold that the Solicitor General had already appealed the trial court's decision by filing a notice of appeal with the trial court and could not improperly appeal the same decision to the SC.