Facts:

The case of Efren A. Antonio, Administrator of the Estate of the Deceased Lim Heh Chio, vs. Wise & Company, Inc., and Pedro Concepcion, Judge of First Instance of Manila, arose from a civil action initiated on September 9, 1926, by Wise & Company against Lim Heh Chio and his relatives, Lim Ching Can, Raymtindo Lim, and Vicente Lim, for the recovery of P1,718.52. The defendants were primarily residents of Masbate, while Lim Heh Chio's residence was unknown. The provincial sheriff attempted to serve summons, leaving copies with Lim Lio, a Chinese individual residing at the defendants' usual abode. Lim Heh Chio could not be located, and the sheriff reported that he had been informed of Lim Heh Chio's death, although there was no confirmed knowledge of this fact. Consequently, summons was published. None of the defendants appeared in court, leading to a default judgment against them. Following this, execution of the judgment was carried out, resulting in the s...

Facts:

Background of the Original Action

• On September 9, 1926, Wise & Company, Inc. initiated an action in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
• The action was for the recovery of the sum of P1,718.52.
• The case was brought against Lim Heh Chio and his apparently nearest relations—namely, Lim Ching Can, Raymtindo Lim, and Vicente Lim—alleging liabilities on their part.
• It was contended in the complaint that, while the defendants, except Lim Heh Chio, were residents of Masbate, Lim Heh Chio’s residence was unknown.

Service of the Summons and Rendered Judgment

• Summons were issued and the provincial sheriff served copies of the summons by leaving them with Lim Lio, described as a Chinese who seemingly resided in the defendants’ usual place of abode.
• The record shows that Lim Heh Chio could not be located at the time of service.
• The sheriff’s report mentioned that there was information indicating that Lim Heh Chio was dead; however, there was no definite proof of his death.
• Consequently, due to the inability to serve Lim Heh Chio personally, he was summoned by publication.

Default Judgment and Subsequent Execution

• None of the defendants appeared in the case, resulting in a judgment rendered by default in favor of Wise & Company, Inc.
• After the judgment, execution was carried out against two warehouses (referred to as camarines) owned by the defendants.
• At the sheriff’s sale, these properties were sold to Wise & Company, Inc.

Post-Judgment Developments and Intervention by the Administrator

• The sons of Lim Heh Chio made repeated, although unsuccessful, attempts to dispossess Wise & Company, Inc. of the properties acquired at the execution sale.
• In October 1930, Efren A. Antonio filed the present proceeding, having been appointed as the administrator of the estate of the deceased Lim Heh Chio at the instigation of the latter’s sons.
• The proceeding was instituted under Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires that a petition challenging a judgment be presented to the Supreme Court within sixty days after the petitioner first learns of the judgment.

Contentions Regarding Timeliness

• The heirs of Lim Heh Chio were aware of the rendition of the default judgment for several years.
• The administrator, Efren A. Antonio, acknowledged that he too was informed of the judgment before his appointment.
• He argued that the sixty-day period should commence from the date of his appointment as administrator, not from when the judgment was originally rendered.
• The petition ultimately sought relief from the default judgment on the basis that the administrator’s later appointment should allow for intervention beyond the immediate sixty-day period.

Court’s Position

• The Court noted that there was no legal provision authorizing the extension or resetting of the sixty-day period based on the timing of the appointment of an administrator.
• The Court determined that the administrator is merely a representative of the heirs and does not alter the fundamental requirement of timeliness under Section 513.
• The concern was emphasized that sanctioning such a proceeding could potentially open the door to endless similar litigations when representative interventions are sought after the statutory period.

Issue:

Whether Efren A. Antonio, acting as the administrator of the estate of Lim Heh Chio, could validly petition to reopen the default judgment more than sixty days after the judgment had been rendered.

• The primary issue was the interpretation and application of Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning the timeliness of such petitions.
• Secondary consideration was given to whether the appointment of an administrator at a later date could alter or extend the statutory period for filing a petition.

• Whether the representative status of an administrator, appointed after the judgment, permits counting the sixty-day period from the date of appointment rather than from the initial awareness of the judgment by the heirs.

• The broader implications of allowing such petitions on the finality and stability of judgments.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)