G.R. No. L-51841 June 30, 1987
REMIGIO QUIQUI, et al., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE ALEJANDRO R. BONCAROS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners filed a complaint for reconveyance and/or annulment of title against private respondents over a 450-square meter parcel of land in Negros Oriental. Petitioners claimed ownership by virtue of their late father’s purchase in 1920 and their continuous, adverse possession for 56 years. They alleged that private respondents secured Free Patent Title No. FV-13703, which included the subject lot, through fraud by clandestinely including it in a government survey. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 6606 in the Court of First Instance.
The trial court, presided by respondent Judge, dismissed the complaint on July 16, 1979, for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners received the order on July 17, 1979. On August 17, 1979, they filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied on August 21, 1979, ruling it was filed one day beyond the 30-day reglementary period. Petitioners subsequently filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond, but the trial court denied the notice of appeal, declaring the dismissal order final and executory due to the late motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion for reconsideration and the notice of appeal on the ground of being filed out of time.

RULING

No, the trial court did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The computation of the reglementary period is governed by clear rules. Under Rule 41 of the Revised Rules of Court, an appeal must be taken within 30 days from notice of the judgment or order. A motion for reconsideration must likewise be filed within the same period. Applying Article 13 of the Civil Code on period computation, the first day is excluded and the last day included. Petitioners received the dismissal order on July 17, 1979. Excluding July 17, the 30th day fell on August 16, 1979. Their motion for reconsideration was filed on August 17, 1979, which was one day late. Consequently, the order of dismissal became final and executory, and the subsequent notice of appeal was correctly denied for being filed beyond the reglementary period.
The Court emphasized that procedural rules must be strictly followed, and exceptions for non-compliance require strong compelling reasons, such as preventing a grave miscarriage of justice. Petitioners offered no reasonable explanation for the delay, and no such compelling reasons were shown to exist. The trial court’s adherence to the procedural timeline was correct and did not constitute a jurisdictional infirmity warranting the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus.