G.R. No. L-18569 - Antonio vs. Jacinto

On March 28, 1958, the plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit in the Court of First Instance of Isabela seeking recovery of possession of a portion of land registered under the names of the deceased spouses Mariano Antonio and Micaela Cudiamat.

The plaintiffs, being the children and grandchildren of the registered owners, claimed that the defendant had unlawfully taken possession of about 2-1/2 hectares of the land and sought not only re-entry into possession but also damages for such wrongful occupation.

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

The defendant’s attorney, Attorney S. P. Tabangay, filed a motion for extension of time to answer on April 26, 1958, asserting that he was newly engaged and required additional time – specifically, 10 days starting from what was presumed to be April 28 – to prepare a proper answer.

It is noted, however, that the factual deadline for filing the answer was actually April 27, 1958.

The case was assigned to Branch II of the court, with its seat in Cauayan, Isabela, but the regular judge had gone on leave and returned only at the end of April 1958.

In the meantime, Judge Manuel Arranz of Branch I (stationed in Ilagan, Isabela) acted as vacation judge and handled interlocutory matters.

On April 30, the defendant’s motion (along with the case records) was forwarded to Branch I due to the temporary assignment of judicial duties.

Despite anticipation of a favorable ruling, delays occurred: a draft order was prepared by the clerk of Branch II for the anticipated favorable disposition, but a strike at Rural Transit resulted in the case files reaching Branch I only on May 14.

By that time, the regular judge of Branch II, Hon. Pedro C. Quinto, had resumed his post. Consequently, Judge Arranz took no action on the motion and returned the records back to Branch II on June 23.

Following the archival transfer, the plaintiffs moved for the defendant’s default, which was later declared by the court.

The defendant’s subsequent motion for reconsideration of the default order was denied because it lacked the necessary verification and affidavit of merit.

Judgment was rendered on July 16, 1958, ordering the defendant to vacate the occupied portion of the land and to pay damages.

On July 28, 1958, the defendant filed a petition seeking relief from the judgment, accompanied by affidavits of merit and his answer. This petition was opposed by the plaintiffs.

The defendant contended that it was erroneous for the lower court to declare him in default without first resolving his pending motion for an extension of time to answer.

He argued that his failure to answer was an honest mistake, made in the belief that the motion would be decided by the trial court.

Additionally, the defendant maintained that a valid defense existed against the plaintiffs’ complaint.

Whether the lower court erred in declaring the defendant in default without first deciding on his motion for an extension of time to file his answer.
Whether the defendant’s failure to answer the complaint can be attributed to an honest mistake excusable under the circumstances, specifically given his reliance on the pending motion for extension.
Whether the absence of a verification and an affidavit of merit in the defendant’s subsequent motion for relief from the default order undermined his right to challenge the default judgment.
Whether, as a party declared in default, the defendant had the legal right to appeal the judgment on the merits directly under the applicable rules, specifically in light of the Revised Rules of Court on default and appeal.