ALFREDO APUYAN, REPRESENTED BY ERNESTO A. ARABEJO, PETITIONER, VS. EVANGELINE A. HALDEMAN, RENATO RADONA, DIONISIO RADONA, DOMINGO RADONA, FRANCISCO RADONA, JOSE RADONA, JR., JO…

Apuyan versus Haldeman

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Alfredo Apuyan against Evangeline Haldeman and the several Radona, Quijano, Sevilla, Paradeza, and Araman respondents. Apuyan had filed a petition for quieting of title over a parcel of land in Palauig, Zambales, claiming to be the registered owner under a free patent and Original Certificate of Title. The respondents countered that they and their predecessors had possessed and bought portions of the same land since the nineteen forties and sixties, and that Apuyan obtained his patent through fraud. The case matters for two reasons: it is a clean lesson on how an appeal must be perfected, and it shows what happens when a notice of appeal names the wrong order.

Procedural History

Apuyan filed his petition for quieting of title with prayer for injunction and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales, Branch 69. After trial, the court rendered judgment dismissing his petition, declaring the free patent and the certificate of title null and void, ordering the Register of Deeds to cancel the title, and reverting the land to the public domain. Apuyan moved for reconsideration; the trial court denied the motion. He then filed a notice of appeal, but the notice stated that he was appealing the order denying his motion for reconsideration, not the decision itself. The trial court denied the notice of appeal, and denied his motion to amend it, holding that he had failed to perfect his appeal and that the judgment had become final and executory.

Apuyan went to the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for a restraining order, asking that the trial court be ordered to give due course to his appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition, ruling that a notice of appeal taken from an order denying a motion for reconsideration cannot be done, that the prayer to elevate the entire records did not cure the defect, and that no appeal having been perfected, the decision had become final. It denied reconsideration. Apuyan then filed the present petition for review under Rule 45.

Facts

The land, Lot No. 1083 of the Cadastral Survey of Palauig, Zambales, was declared for taxation in the name of Apolinario Apuyan in nineteen forty-four. In September of that year Apolinario executed a pacto de retro sale in favor of Segundo Dador. He failed to repurchase within the five-year period, and Dador consolidated ownership in nineteen forty-nine. Dador sold the land to Emerita Abdon in nineteen sixty, and Abdon in turn sold a large portion to Jose Radona in nineteen sixty-four and the remaining six thousand square meters to Jaime Abdon in nineteen seventy-two. From Jaime Abdon the remaining portion passed through a chain of sales to the various respondents and their predecessors, who paid the corresponding real property taxes.

Meanwhile, in April nineteen eighty-five, Alfredo Apuyan applied for a free patent over the same land, submitting a deed of relinquishment from the heirs of Apolinario Apuyan and supporting affidavits. The records showed no notice of the application to the respondents. Free patent and Original Certificate of Title No. P-11962 were issued in July nineteen ninety-three.

The respondents filed a protest with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, but the Regional Executive Director dismissed it, noting that the land had already been patented and titled and that the Office of the Solicitor General had suspended reversion actions, advising the protestants to bring the matter to the ordinary courts. Apuyan then filed his petition for quieting of title. The trial court found that he was guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in his patent application, that the respondents owned the portions they occupied, and rendered the judgment already described.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the omission in the notice of appeal to state that the trial court's decision was being appealed from was fatal to the appeal.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to rule on the merits of the case and on the trial court's decision.
• Whether or not the trial court committed serious errors in cancelling the free patent and title, reverting the land to the public domain, and allowing the respondents to apply for legalization of their ownership.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, as it stood when the notice of appeal was filed, provides:

Section 2. Judgments or orders subject to appeal. Only final judgments or orders shall be subject to appeal. No interlocutory or incidental judgment or order shall stay the progress of an action nor shall it be the subject of appeal until final judgment or order is rendered for one party or the other.

This fixes what may be appealed, and an order denying a motion for reconsideration is not among them.

Section 9 of Rule 37 of the present Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 9. Remedy against order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration. An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration is not appealable, the remedy being an appeal from the judgment or final order.

This states the rule that the remedy is an appeal from the judgment, not from the order of denial.

Section 1 of Rule 41 of the present Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 1. Subject of appeal. An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable. No appeal may be taken from: (a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration; In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special action under Rule 65.

This confirms that the proper subject of an appeal is the judgment or final order, and that the remedy against a denial of reconsideration is a special action.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled in favor of Apuyan. It held that an order denying a motion for reconsideration is interlocutory and not appealable, and that the rules codified existing jurisprudence rather than introducing anything new. But the Court did not stop there. It asked whether an appeal from such an order may be treated as an appeal from the judgment itself. The Court answered yes, because the notice of appeal was filed within the reglementary period, the order appealed from was issued precisely to deny reconsideration of the decision, and the notice prayed that the entire records be elevated. To deny the appeal on so technical a ground would defeat the policy favoring the resolution of cases on their merits. The Court therefore treated the appeal as taken from the decision.

On the second and third issues, the Court held that the Court of Appeals should have ruled on the merits rather than dismissing the appeal on a technicality. Having found that the appeal was properly perfected, the Court reviewed the trial court's findings. It found no reason to disturb them: the evidence established that the respondents and their predecessors had owned and possessed the land long before Apuyan's patent application, that Apuyan obtained his patent through fraud and misrepresentation, and that the respondents were entitled to the relief granted. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Doctrine

First, an order denying a motion for reconsideration is interlocutory and is not appealable; the remedy is an appeal from the judgment or final order, or a special action under Rule 65 where no appeal lies.

Second, a notice of appeal that mistakenly names the order denying reconsideration instead of the judgment may be treated as an appeal from the judgment, where it is filed within the reglementary period and the intent to appeal the judgment is clear from its terms. Rules of procedure are tools to secure substantial justice, not traps for the unwary.

Third, a free patent obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, without notice to actual occupants, confers no indefeasible title, and the land may be reverted to the public domain.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Court set aside the Court of Appeals decision and resolution, treated the appeal as taken from the trial court's decision, and affirmed that decision on the merits, with the result that Apuyan lost and the respondents prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an order denying a motion for reconsideration is not appealable, but a notice of appeal that mistakenly names it may be treated as an appeal from the judgment if filed on time and the intent is clear. Examiners use this case to test the perfection of appeals and the liberal construction of procedural rules.