G.R. No. 167215, October 8, 2008.
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Heirs of Evaristo Tiotioen, respondents.

FACTS

Evaristo Tiotioen filed an application for judicial confirmation and registration of two parcels of land in La Trinidad, Benguet. Upon his death, his heirs were substituted. The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, opposed the application, claiming the lands were part of an inalienable communal forest. The OSG filed a Notice of Appearance authorizing the Provincial Prosecutor of Benguet to appear, but specified that only notices served directly on the OSG would bind the government, and the OSG retained control over actions like appeals. The Regional Trial Court granted the application for registration in a Decision dated August 30, 2001. The OSG received this decision on September 6, 2001. The Municipality of La Trinidad filed a Motion for Reconsideration on September 20, 2001, which the OSG adopted through a Motion and Manifestation filed on October 5, 2001. The RTC denied the Motion for Reconsideration via a Resolution dated December 6, 2001. The OSG was not furnished a copy of this Resolution by the court; it was informed by the Provincial Prosecutor via a letter received on January 4, 2002. The OSG then filed a Notice of Appeal on January 11, 2002. The RTC denied this Notice of Appeal as filed out of time, ruling the reglementary period ended on September 21, 2001. The Court of Appeals sustained the denial, finding the decision had attained finality as to the Republic because the OSG’s adoption of the municipality’s motion was filed beyond the appeal period. The Republic filed the present petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Notice of Appeal filed by the Republic of the Philippines (through the OSG) on January 11, 2002, was timely filed.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and gave due course to the Notice of Appeal. The Court held that the reglementary period for the Republic to appeal should be reckoned from the OSG’s receipt of the order denying the motion for reconsideration (the December 6, 2001 Resolution), not from the receipt of the original decision. The OSG’s Notice of Appearance expressly stipulated that only notices served on the OSG would bind the government. Since the OSG was not served the Resolution by the court and only learned of it on January 4, 2002, its Notice of Appeal filed on January 11, 2002 was within the 15-day period. The Court further ruled that even assuming a procedural lapse, substantial justice dictates that the appeal be allowed, given the strong grounds raised by the Republic regarding the land’s alleged inalienable status as a protected watershed, which are substantive issues that should be decided on their merits.