Facts:

In the case of Jose Agravante and Juan Agravante vs. Juana Patriarca, substituted by Rosita Ordonez and Ricardo Ordonez, filed under G.R. No. L-48324 on March 14, 1990, the background stems from actions initiated on November 16, 1969, when Juana Patriarca Pena lodged a case at the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur against the Agravante brothers to quiet title, seeking damages as well. The defendants filed their answer, and a pre-trial was subsequently scheduled. However, due to a devastating fire on June 26, 1976, at the Camarines Sur capitol building, the case records were destroyed. The case was later reconstituted, with a pre-trial set for January 25, 1978. Just before this date, defense counsel requested to cancel the pre-trial, yet the motion lacked essential components as it did not provide notice of hearing and was filed late. The trial court reset the pre-trial to February 27, 1978, but again, the defense counsel sought cancellation, citing illness.

This motion wa

...

Facts:

Filing of the Action and Answer

• In 1969, Juana Patriarca Pena filed an action to quiet title with damages against Jose Agravante and Juan Agravante before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur (Civil Case No. R-182).
• The defendants duly filed their answer within the prescribed period.

The Fire Incident and Reconstitution of Records

• A fire on June 26, 1976, destroyed the records of the court, including those pertaining to Case No. R-182.
• The records were later reconstituted, and the case was re-scheduled for pre-trial on January 25, 1978.

Pre-trial Rescheduling and Defendants’ Motion for Postponement

• After the initial pre-trial setting, the defendants’ counsel moved to cancel the pre-trial.
• The pre-trial was reset for February 27, 1978; however, the defendants' counsel (Atty. Gil Pacamarra) later filed another motion (dated February 14, 1978, but filed on February 22, 1978) for cancellation or postponement, pleading illness (headache) as justification.
• The motion was deficient as it:
• Lacked a proper notice of hearing or a scheduled date for the hearing, and
• Was supported only by an unverified xerox copy of a medical certificate purportedly dated January 30, 1978, which did not convincingly establish that the illness was of such a nature as to preclude attendance at the pre-trial.
• The Presiding Judge issued an Order on February 22, 1978, denying the motion for cancellation due to non-compliance with procedural requirements under the Rules of Court.

Default and Ex-Parte Proceedings

• On the scheduled pre-trial date, February 27, 1978, neither the defendants nor their counsel appeared before the court.
• The Court subsequently declared the defendants in default and authorized the plaintiff to present her evidence ex-parte at any time.

Death of the Plaintiff and Substitution of Parties

• On March 4, 1978, the plaintiff, Juana Patriarca Pena, died.
• Her heirs moved to have themselves substituted in her stead.
• On March 7, 1978, the substitution was approved by the trial court, ordering Deogracias Pena and Rosita Pena-Ordonez, as heirs of the deceased, to replace Juana Patriarca Pena in the action.

Defendants’ Motions for Reconsideration and Petition for Certiorari

• The defendants moved for reconsideration of the three orders (dated February 22, February 27, and March 4, 1978).
• The trial court denied these motions on April 11, 1978, as lacking merit.
• Subsequently, a petition for certiorari was filed, wherein the defendants alleged that:
• Their counsel’s omission of a notice of hearing in the motion for postponement was a mere formal defect attributable to his illness;
• The pre-trial setting was void because notice had not been served personally on them;
• The court’s proceedings were jurisdictionally defective after the death of the plaintiff; and
• They were deprived of an opportunity to object to the substitution of the plaintiff by her heirs.

Issue:

Procedural Validity of the Motion for Postponement

• Whether the motion for cancellation/postponement of the pre-trial, which failed to include a notice of hearing and a proper schedule, could be considered valid despite the alleged illness of the defendants’ counsel.
• Whether the omission was merely a formal defect or one that substantively prejudiced the defendants’ right to be heard.

Adequacy of Notice for Pre-trial Proceedings

• Whether serving notice of the pre-trial solely to the defendants’ counsel, without personal service to the defendants, rendered the proceedings void or prejudiced the defendants’ right to due process.

Jurisdiction in Light of the Plaintiff’s Death

• Whether the death of Juana Patriarca Pena affected the court’s jurisdiction over the action.
• Whether the substitution of the plaintiff by her heirs in accordance with Section 17, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court was proper and did not compromise the court’s inherent jurisdiction to proceed with the case.

Opportunity to Challenge the Substitution

• Whether the defendants were deprived of an adequate opportunity to object to the substitution of the deceased plaintiff by her heirs.

Remedy Against Default Orders

• Whether the defendants had any valid remedy to set aside the order declaring them in default, particularly given the alleged procedural shortcomings in the motion for postponement.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)