Title
Antonio vs. Jacinto
Case
G.R. No. L-18569
Decision Date
Jun 22, 1965
Plaintiffs sued defendant for land possession; defendant defaulted after failed extension request. Court denied relief, upheld default judgment, citing counsel's failure to file answer timely.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18569)

Facts:

Background of the Case

  • On March 28, 1958, the plaintiffs, Placido Antonio et al., filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Isabela against the defendant, Petronilo Jacinto, for the recovery of possession of a portion of land registered in the names of the deceased spouses Mariano Antonio and Micaela Cudiamat. The plaintiffs are the children and grandchildren of the registered owners.
  • The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant unlawfully took possession of approximately 2.5 hectares of the land and sought to be restored to possession, along with damages.

Service of Summons

  • Summons and a copy of the complaint were served on the defendant on April 12, 1958.

Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer

  • On April 26, 1958 (the day before the last day to file an answer), Attorney S.P. Tabangay, representing the defendant, filed a motion for a 10-day extension to file the answer, claiming he was only engaged by the defendant on that day.
  • The case was assigned to Branch II of the court, but the judge was on leave. Judge Manuel Arranz of Branch I acted as the vacation judge and handled interlocutory matters.
  • Due to a mail strike, the records of the case did not reach Branch I until May 14, 1958. By then, the regular judge of Branch II, Judge Pedro C. Quinto, had returned, and Judge Arranz returned the records to Branch II on June 23, 1958.

Default Judgment

  • The plaintiffs moved to declare the defendant in default, which the court granted. The defendant’s motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of verification and affidavit of merit.
  • On July 16, 1958, the court rendered a default judgment against the defendant, ordering him to vacate the land and pay damages.

Petition for Relief from Judgment

  • On July 28, 1958, the defendant filed a verified petition for relief from judgment, supported by affidavits of merit. He claimed he had purchased the land from the deceased spouses and attached his answer to the petition.
  • The plaintiffs opposed the petition, and on March 10, 1959, the court denied the defendant’s petition for relief.

Issue:

  1. Whether the lower court erred in declaring the defendant in default without first resolving his motion for an extension of time to file an answer.
  2. Whether the defendant’s failure to file an answer was due to an honest mistake, as he believed his motion for extension would be resolved by the court.
  3. Whether the defendant had a valid defense against the plaintiffs’ complaint.
  4. Whether a party declared in default can appeal the judgment on the merits against him.

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s order denying the defendant’s petition for relief from judgment.
  • The Court held that the defendant’s attorney should have filed the answer while the motion for extension was pending.
  • The motion for reconsideration of the default order was defective as it lacked verification and an affidavit of merit.
  • The Court found no abuse of discretion by the lower court in denying the petition for relief, considering the circumstances of the case.

Ratio:

  1. Default Judgment and Motion for Extension: A party in default cannot appeal the judgment on the merits unless they file a motion under Rule 38 to set aside the default order based on fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable neglect. If the motion is denied, the party may appeal the denial.
  2. Revised Rules of Court: Under Rule 41, Section 2, Paragraph 3, a party declared in default may appeal the judgment as contrary to the evidence or law, even without filing a petition for relief under Rule 38.
  3. Duty of Counsel: The defendant’s attorney should have filed the answer while the motion for extension was pending to avoid default.
  4. Discretion of the Court: A motion for relief is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and the lower court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition.


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.