Case Digest (G.R. No. 19565)
Facts:
The case involves Atkins, Kroll & Co. as the plaintiff and Santiago Domingo as the defendant. The events leading to the case began on September 30, 1921, when the plaintiff, a domestic corporation, filed a complaint against the defendant, a resident of Zamboanga. The complaint alleged that both parties were joint tenants of lots Nos. 38 and 55, as per the cadastral plan of the Zamboanga townsite, registered under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 3433 and 3435. The plaintiff claimed that the parties had been unable to amicably partition the properties and sought a court order for partition and the division of improvements on the land.
On November 1, 1921, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint, stating that lot No. 36 had been inadvertently omitted and that disputes had arisen regarding the rental accounting for the properties. The plaintiff requested permission to file an amended complaint to address all issues in one suit. Subsequently, on November 23,...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 19565)
Facts:
Parties and Property Ownership:
- The plaintiff, Atkins, Kroll & Co., is a domestic corporation.
- The defendant, Santiago Domingo, is a resident of Zamboanga.
- Both parties are joint owners of lots Nos. 38 and 55 of the Zamboanga townsite, registered under Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 3433 and 3435.
Filing of the Complaint:
- On September 30, 1921, the plaintiff filed a complaint seeking the partition of the jointly owned properties and an accounting of rental income.
- The plaintiff later filed an amended complaint on November 1, 1921, to include lot No. 36 and address rental disputes.
Service of Summons and Complaint:
- The original complaint and summons were served on September 30, 1921, by leaving a copy with Maximo Domingo, the defendant’s son, at the defendant’s residence.
- The amended complaint was sent to the defendant by registered mail, but it was returned undelivered.
- On December 18, 1921, the plaintiff’s attorney personally delivered a copy of the amended complaint to the defendant’s son, who was over 16 years old.
Default Judgment:
- The defendant failed to appear or file an answer.
- On November 23, 1921, the plaintiff moved for a default judgment, which was granted.
- On January 16, 1922, the trial court rendered a judgment partitioning the properties and awarding the plaintiff P587.01 in rental income.
Motion for New Trial:
- On February 6, 1922, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial, claiming he never received the summons or complaint and was unaware of the proceedings.
- The trial court denied the motion, prompting the defendant to appeal.
Issue:
- Whether the service of the amended complaint on the defendant’s son was valid to confer jurisdiction over the defendant.
- Whether the trial court erred in declaring the defendant in default and rendering judgment based on the amended complaint.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)