G.R. No. L-29157. April 27, 1972.
FAUSTINO LUCAS, ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE HERMINIO C. MARIANO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a complaint for reconveyance and annulment of title. The trial court dismissed the case on September 16, 1965. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on November 10, 1965, which was denied on November 23, 1965. They then filed a second motion for reconsideration on February 1, 1966. On September 6, 1966, the court granted this second motion and set aside the 1965 dismissal order. However, upon motion by the defendants, the court issued another order on December 1, 1966, reinstating the dismissal. Petitioners moved for reconsideration of this December 1 order, which was denied on April 17, 1967. They then filed a notice of appeal on May 18, 1967.
The trial court initially gave due course to the appeal, counting the reglementary period from the December 1, 1966 order. However, upon a motion for reconsideration by the defendants, the court reversed itself. It ruled that the petitioners’ second motion for reconsideration (filed February 1, 1966) of the original September 16, 1965 dismissal was filed forty days after they received notice of the denial of their first motion, making it pro forma and not tolling the appeal period. Consequently, the court held the appeal was filed out of time and ordered execution of the dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners’ notice of appeal was filed within the reglementary period.

RULING

No, the appeal was not perfected on time. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s final order denying the appeal, albeit on different legal grounds. The Court clarified that a second motion for reconsideration is generally prohibited as it is considered a mere reiteration and thus pro forma. The period for appeal should be counted from the petitioner’s receipt of the order denying the first motion for reconsideration (November 23, 1965). Since the notice of appeal was filed only on May 18, 1967, it was indisputably filed beyond the 30-day reglementary period.
The Court further held that the subsequent orders of September 6, 1966 (granting the second motion) and December 1, 1966 (re-dismissing the case) were issued without jurisdiction because the court had already lost authority over the case upon the lapse of the appeal period from the 1965 orders. An order issued without jurisdiction is void and cannot validate an otherwise belated appeal. The Court also noted that after a thorough review, the petitioners’ claim appeared to lack merit, and further proceedings would serve no useful purpose. The petition was denied.