REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 275
LAS PIÑAS CITY, METRO-MANILA

IN THE MATTER OF CONFIRMATION OF

OWNERSHIP &/OR REGISTRATION
OF A PARCEL OF LAND IN BO.
ALAMANZA, LAS PINAS , M.M.

LRC CASE NO. M-211

LEONARDO A. MAALA,
REYNALDO A. LIMOSNERO,
ROSARIO G. ARCIAGA,
SANTOS G. ARCIAGA,
CONSORCIA G. ARCIAGA,
LOLITO G. ARCIAGA,
ADORACION G. ARCIAGA,
Represented in this Petition
by their Attorney-In-Fact, Jesus B. Rodriguez
Petitioners

x-----------------------------x

MOTION TO REOPEN

All the above PETITIONERS, through counsel , unto this Honorable

Court, most respectfully states, that:

1. The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

a.) The instant case was filed in Court on October 21,

1993 ;
b.) On Sept. 17, 1997, a Motion to Dismiss Application
was filed in Court by Oppositor Francel Realty Corporation;
 c.) On September 22, 1997, herein applicants filed an
Opposition to the Motion To Dismiss;
d.) On May 5, 1998, the Motion To Dismiss was
granted and herein case was dismissed;
e.) On June 8, 1998 , a Motion For Reconsideration was
filed in Court which was denied on August 12 , 1998;
f.) On September 24, 2008, the applicants filed a Notice
of Appeal which was denied due course on September 28,
1998;
g.) Petitioners filed a Motion For Reconsideration
questioning the Order denying their Notice of Appeal
which was denied on November 18, 1998;

2. The Order dated November 18,1998 reads as follows:

ORDER

FOR RESOLUTION is the Motion For Reconsideration filed by the

Applicants of the Order dated September 28, 1998 which denied due course to their
Notice Of Appeal. Applicants allege that the proper remedy in this case is to file the
necessary notice of appeal considering that this is a land registration case, which falls
under the original jurisdiction of the RTC . As such , under Rule 41, Section 2 of 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, an appeal may be made.

The Court disagrees.

It should be stressed, that the order sought to be appealed is an Order, which

denied the Motion For Reconsideration, filed by the Applicants of the previous Order
which dismissed the application.

Rule 41 Section 1 of the 1997 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 ;
Xxx
 In all the above instances, where the judgment or
order is not appealable , the aggrieved party may file an
appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.”

Hence , it is clear that appeal is not a proper remedy in this.

WHEREFORE , the Motion for Reconsideration is hereby Denied for lack of

Merit .
SO ORDERED.
Las Pinas City, November 18, 1998.

3. With all due respect to then Presiding Judge,

Honorable Judge Cesar Z. Ylagan, the latter might have overlooked
and failed to read the pertinent contents of the Notice of Appeal filed
by the Plaintiffs, pertinent portion reads as follows:

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Plaintiffs through counsel respectfully gives notice to this Honorable Court

that they are appealing to the Court of Appeals under Section 1, Rule 41, Rules of
Court the Order dated 5 May 1998 received on 1 June 1998 dismissing the
application for registration and Motion For Reconsideration on said Order was filed
on 8 June 1998 which was also denied in an Order dated 12 August 1998 which was
received on 24 September 1998 , said Orders being contrary to law and applicable
jurisprudence.(emphasis ours)

Manila for Las Pinas City

September 24, 19998

4. It is now crystal clear from the Notice of Appeal that the

plaintiffs were appealing the Order dated May 5,1998 dismissing
the instant case and not the Order denying the Motion for
Reconsideration dated August 12,1998 ;

5. The filing of the Notice of Appeal appealing the Order

dated May 5, 1998 is in consonance with Section 9 Rule 37 New
Trial or Reconsideration which states that:

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.
6. The Court was incorrect in appreciating that the plaintiffs
were appealing an order denying the motion for reconsideration, such
was not the case;

7. Hence , the Notice of Appeal filed by the Applicant on

September 24, 1998 was proper and should have been given due
course;

8. Unfortunately, the same was not timely raised by the

previous counsel of the plaintiffs for the Court to appreciate.

9. It is note worthy to state the Revised Rules of Court was still

new then. The 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure were approved
by the Supreme Court in its Resolution in Bar Matter No. 803, dated
April 8, 1997, that took effect on July 1, 1997. This could be the
reason for failure to raise the same in court and for the Court to
appreciate the same;

10. Settled is the rule that a client is bound by the mistakes of

his counsel. The only exception is when the negligence of the counsel
is so gross, reckless and inexcusable that the client is deprived of his
day in court;

11. In such instance, the remedy is to Reopen the case and allow
the party who was denied his day in court adduce evidence.  
Perusing the case at bar, we believe that there are reasons to depart
from the general rule; 

12. Thus the greater interest of justice demands that the rules of
procedure be relaxed in order to prevent manifest injustice.
13.   In addition, the Court might have been misled in the
rendering its Order dated May 5, 1998 dismissing the instant case;

14. According to the Court, applicants failed to comply with the

obligation incumbent upon them. With all due respect to then
Presiding Judge, Honorable Judge Alfredo R. Enriquez, the delays
were not all attributable to the applicants such as failure of third
persons to comply with the Order of the Court. The same can be best
exemplified when the verification survey plan of the land in–question
and the survey report was belatedly submitted by Office of the
Technical Director (NCR), DENR, Quezon, Metro Manila. It is
noteworthy to state that the same was the basis for reinstating the
case on May 14,1996;

15. Also, the Court stated in the Order that “A land already
covered under the operation of the Torrens System of Registration can
no longer be applied for in an original registration”. With all due
respect with the Court, the position of oppositor Francel Realty
Corporation of having a title over the property subject of this case is a
matter of defense. The same should be tackled and raised in a full
blown trial. The same is not a proper ground for a motion to dismiss.

Assuming arguendo that they have a valid title, the same

does not conclusively prove that the title covers the whole parcel of
land subject of this case;

16. In view of the error committed by the Court, we pray for the
reopening of the case in order to lay down all the facts and pieces of
 evidence the applicants have for the registration of the subject parcel
of land;

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of

this Honorable Court that an Order be issued granting reopening of the
case.
Other relief just and equitable are likewise prayed for.
July 7, 2008, Las Piñas City

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Las Piñas City District Office
3rd Floor, Hall of Justice
Las Piñas City, Metro Manila

ERIC P. FUENTES
Public Attorney II

NOTICE AND COPY FURNISHED

The Branch Clerk of Court

RTC-Branch 275
Las Piñas City, Metro-Manila

Greetings:

Kindly submit the foregoing Motion to the Honorable Court for its
consideration and approval on July 18, 2008 (FRIDAY) at 2:00 in the
afternoon;

ERIC P. FUENTES
Public Attorney II

Copy furnished:
ATTY. GUILERMO E. ARAGONES
G.E. ARAGONES & ASSOCIATES
UNIT 511, SOUTH STAR PLAZA
SOUTH SUPERHIGHWAY, BANGKAL
MAKATI CITY

ATTY. ROSENDO G. TANSINSIN

SUITE 229 MADRIGAL BUILDING
ESCOLTA , MANILA

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

LEGASPI VILLAGE
MAKATI CITY