Facts:

This case, Felicisima Ballecer and Jose S. Agawin vs. Jose Bernardo, the Hon. Jesus P. Morfe, presiding Judge, and the Sheriff of Manila, revolves around an original action for the annulment of several orders issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 43073, which included an alias writ of execution and a notice of sale related to said case. The petitioners, Jose S. Agawin and Felicisima Ballecer, lodged a complaint against respondent Jose Bernardo on May 4, 1960, seeking damages for the alleged destruction of part of their property along Felix Huertas Street, Manila. The claim involved not only damages but also the recovery of possession of 0.80 square meters of their lot that they alleged Bernardo encroached upon by constructing a wall.

In response, Bernardo filed a counterclaim asserting that the encroachment was by the petitioners onto his property, claiming they had occupied 3.70 square meters of his land without consent. He sought not only the resto

...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioners: Felicisima Ballecer and Jose S. Agawin (spouses).
   • Respondents: Jose Bernardo, Hon. Jesus P. Morfe (Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Manila), and the Sheriff of Manila.

2. Nature of the Case:

   • Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 43073 against respondent Jose Bernardo on May 4, 1960, seeking damages and recovery of possession of a portion of their lot allegedly encroached upon by Bernardo.

3. Petitioners' Claims:

   • Bernardo destroyed and demolished a portion of their wall along the common boundary line of their properties.
   • Bernardo allegedly encroached upon 0.80 square meters of their lot.

4. Respondent's Counterclaim:

   • Bernardo denied petitioners' claims and asserted that the demolition occurred within his property.
   • He counterclaimed that petitioners had encroached upon 3.70 square meters of his property without consent.
   • He sought recovery of the encroached portion, compensatory damages (P3,625.00 for lost rentals), actual damages (P541.00), moral damages (P10,000.00), exemplary damages (P2,000.00), and attorney’s fees (P1,000.00).

5. Procedural History:

   • Petitioners filed an ex parte motion for extension to answer the counterclaim, which was denied.
   • The court declared petitioners in default on the counterclaim and allowed Bernardo to present evidence ex parte.
   • On June 20, 1960, the court ruled in favor of Bernardo on the counterclaim, ordering petitioners to vacate the encroached area and pay damages.
   • Petitioners' motions for reconsideration and petition for relief from judgment were denied.
   • The court issued an alias writ of execution, and the Sheriff published a notice of sale of petitioners' property.

Issue:

1. Whether the lower court gravely abused its discretion in declaring petitioners in default and rendering judgment against them on Bernardo's counterclaim after an ex parte hearing.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)