Title
Alquesa vs. Cavada, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. L-16735
Decision Date
Oct 31, 1961
A forcible entry case led to a judgment against defendants, who withdrew their appeal and sought relief under Rule 38, denied due to procedural defects and prior appeal.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-16735)

Facts:

  1. Initial Complaint and Judgment:

    • On July 29, 1957, Venancio L. Dagala filed a complaint for forcible entry (Civil Case No. 22-RP) against Fructuoso Alquesa and 19 others in the Justice of the Peace Court of Pinamungajan, Cebu, presided over by Justice of the Peace Blas G. Cavada, Jr.
    • On August 24, 1957, the court rendered a judgment against the 20 defendants (petitioners herein).
  2. Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Appeal:

    • On September 3, 1957, the defendants filed a motion to set aside the judgment, alleging lack of jurisdiction due to "fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence," which deprived them of their "day in court."
    • On September 10, 1957, the defendants withdrew their motion to set aside the judgment and instead sought an extension of time to appeal, which was granted.
    • On the same date, they filed a notice of appeal, and the case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance of Cebu, where it was docketed as Civil Case No. R-5254.
  3. Withdrawal of Appeal and Petition for Relief:

    • On October 7, 1957, the defendants, with the approval of the Court of First Instance, withdrew their appeal.
    • On October 8, 1957, they filed a petition to set aside the judgment of the Justice of the Peace Court, relying on Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.
  4. Denial of Petition for Relief:

    • On November 10, 1957, the Court of First Instance denied the petition to set aside the judgment, holding that Rule 38 was inapplicable because the judgment was appealable, and an appeal had already been interposed and withdrawn.
  5. Allegation of Lack of Jurisdiction:

    • The petitioners claimed that the Justice of the Peace Court lacked jurisdiction over some of them because not all had been properly summoned. However, the record was insufficient to determine the truth of this allegation.

Issue:

  1. Whether the Court of First Instance erred in denying the petition to set aside the judgment of the Justice of the Peace Court under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.
  2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief under Rule 38, given that they had previously appealed the judgment but later withdrew the appeal.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.