Title
Antonio vs. Wise and Co., Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 34335
Decision Date
Jan 26, 1931
Efren Antonio, as administrator of Lim Heh Chio's estate, challenged a default judgment favoring Wise & Co. The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling it untimely under Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as heirs knew of the judgment for years.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 34335)

Facts:

Parties Involved:

  • Petitioner: Efren A. Antonio, Administrator of the Estate of the Deceased Lim Heh Chio.
  • Respondents: Wise & Company, Inc., and Pedro Concepcion, Judge of First Instance of Manila.

Background of the Case:

  1. Initial Lawsuit: On September 9, 1926, Wise & Company filed a lawsuit in the Court of First Instance of Manila against Lim Heh Chio and his relatives (Lim Ching Can, Raymtindo Lim, and Vicente Lim) to recover the sum of P1,718.52.
  2. Defendants' Residence: The defendants were residents of Masbate, except Lim Heh Chio, whose residence was unknown.
  3. Service of Summons: The provincial sheriff served the summons by leaving copies with Lim Lio, a Chinese residing in the defendants' usual place of abode. Lim Heh Chio could not be found, and the sheriff was informed that he was dead. However, there was no definitive proof of his death, so he was summoned by publication.
  4. Default Judgment: None of the defendants appeared in court, and a default judgment was rendered in favor of Wise & Company.
  5. Execution of Judgment: The judgment was executed, and two warehouses (camarines) were sold to Wise & Company at a sheriff's sale.

Subsequent Events:

  1. Efforts to Dispossess: The sons of Lim Heh Chio made several unsuccessful attempts to reclaim the properties sold at the sheriff's sale.
  2. Appointment of Administrator: In October 1930, Efren A. Antonio was appointed administrator of Lim Heh Chio's estate at the request of his sons.
  3. Filing of Petition: Antonio filed a petition under Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure to challenge the judgment.

Issue:

  1. Whether the petition filed by Efren A. Antonio, as administrator of Lim Heh Chio's estate, is timely under Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
  2. Whether the appointment of an administrator can extend the 60-day period for filing a petition to challenge a judgment.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the petition was not filed within the 60-day period required by Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The heirs of Lim Heh Chio had known about the judgment for several years, and the appointment of an administrator did not extend the time limit for filing the petition.

Ratio:

  1. Timeliness of Petition: Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that a petition to challenge a judgment must be filed within 60 days after the petitioner first learns of the judgment. The heirs of Lim Heh Chio had been aware of the judgment for years, and the administrator's appointment did not reset this time limit.
  2. Role of Administrator: The administrator is merely a representative of the heirs and cannot use his appointment as a means to circumvent the statutory time limit. Allowing such a practice would lead to endless litigation.
  3. Legal Precedent: The Court emphasized that no law supports the argument that the appointment of an administrator extends the time for filing a petition under Section 513.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court denied the petition, ruling that it was filed outside the statutory time limit. The costs were imposed on the petitioner.


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.