G.R. No. L-27673 November 24, 1972
JULIO SAPIDA, et al., petitioners, vs. MERCEDES ASPILLERA DE VILLANUEVA and VICENTE P. VILLANUEVA, spouses, and HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Sapida filed a complaint to quiet title over a parcel of land in Cavite against respondents Villanueva. The Court of First Instance rendered a decision on March 30, 1966, in favor of the petitioners, declaring them the owners and enjoining the respondents from asserting any claim. Respondents received the decision on April 29, 1966, and on the 27th day, May 26, 1966, they filed a detailed motion for new trial and/or reconsideration. After extensive pleadings, the trial court issued an order on August 10, 1966, denying the motion for reconsideration. A critical dispute arose regarding when respondents’ counsel received a copy of this denial order.
Petitioners contended that the order was sent via registered mail by the court’s docket clerk on August 23, 1966, and received by respondents’ counsel on August 30, 1966. If true, the decision would have become final on September 3, 1966, making respondents’ appeal filed on October 10, 1966, untimely. Respondents countered that the registered mail received on August 30 contained only a different order dated July 27, 1966, denying a motion for preliminary injunction, and that they only learned of the August 10 denial order on October 7, 1966, during a hearing. They thus filed their appeal on October 10, 1966, within the remaining period.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the respondents’ petition for certiorari and mandamus, thereby ordering the trial court to give due course to their appeal, based on the disputed date of receipt of the order denying their motion for reconsideration.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and its rebuttal by clear and convincing evidence. While the affidavit of the docket clerk established the presumption that the August 10 denial order was duly mailed and received, this presumption was sufficiently overcome by the countervailing affidavit from the respondents’ secretary, who categorically stated under oath that the envelope received on August 30 contained only the July 27 order. The Court emphasized that the presumption is not conclusive. In the face of a direct and positive contradiction under oath regarding the contents of the mailing, and considering the absence of any corroborating annotation on the registry notice or return card specifying the contents as the denial order, the scale of justice tilts in favor of allowing the appeal. The right to appeal is a substantive right, and doubts should be resolved in favor of its exercise, especially where substantial issues are raised from an adverse decision. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the appellate court’s ruling to afford respondents the opportunity to pursue their appeal on the merits.