Title
Banares vs. Flordeliza
Case
G.R. No. 29355
Decision Date
Jul 20, 1928
Julian Gavito sued Donato Banares to reclaim land sold at auction. Banares defaulted due to procedural error, but the Supreme Court ruled the judge abused discretion by not setting aside the default, allowing Banares to present his defense.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 29355)

Facts:

Background of the Case

  • In November 1916, a writ of execution was issued by the justice of the peace of Barcelona, Sorsogon, in a case filed by Eugenio Fortuno against Julian Gavito over a sum of money.
  • On October 16, 1916, a piece of rice, hemp, and coconut land belonging to Julian Gavito was levied upon.
  • On November 4, 1916, the municipal sheriff of Barcelona sold the land at public auction, with Donato Banares being the highest bidder.
  • After the one-year redemption period expired, the municipal deputy sheriff, Isaac Camposano, executed a deed of sale in favor of Donato Banares.

Filing of the Complaint

  • On October 18, 1927, Julian Gavito filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon against Donato Banares, seeking to redeem the land, restore ownership and possession, and claim damages of P100 per year plus costs.

Procedural History

  • On November 15, 1927, Donato Banares filed an answer to the complaint within the regulatory period.
  • However, a copy of the answer was not furnished to Julian Gavito.
  • On December 12, 1927, Julian Gavito filed a motion for default against Donato Banares.
  • On December 17, 1927, Judge Tomas Flordeliza issued an order declaring Donato Banares in default and allowing Julian Gavito to present evidence.

Motion to Set Aside Default

  • On February 9, 1928, Donato Banares filed a sworn motion to set aside the order of default, claiming a just and valid defense.
  • He attached documents and argued that his failure to furnish a copy of the answer was based on his belief that the doctrine in Gochangco vs. Dean (47 Phil. 687) was still applicable.
  • The court denied the motion, citing the later case of Gonzalez and Mauricio vs. Francisco (49 Phil. 747), which held that failure to furnish a copy of the answer constitutes default.

Issue:

The primary issue is whether the respondent judge abused his discretion in refusing to set aside the order of default and in not permitting Donato Banares to participate in the trial.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


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.