Case Digest (G.R. No. L-31987)
Facts:
The case involves petitioners Dolores, Eufemia, Pedro, Felicitas, Elena, and Gaga Cabales, along with Alejandro Torres, against private respondent Joseto Tan Nery and the Court of Appeals. The events leading to this case began when Joseto Tan Nery filed a complaint on July 18, 1961, in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, Branch II, seeking recovery of a portion of real property located in barrio Agusan, Cagayan de Oro City, which was covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 30, now Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-3254. The defendants claimed long-standing possession of the property and argued that the plaintiff had no legal standing to sue since he had sold the property to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP).
On May 29, 1962, Nery filed an amended complaint, initially including DBP as a co-plaintiff, but later as a defendant after DBP expressed unwillingness to join him. DBP contended that it had acquired the property through an auction sale ...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-31987)
Facts:
Background of the Case
- The case involves a dispute over a portion of real property located in Barrio Agusan, Cagayan de Oro City, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 30, now Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-3254.
- The plaintiff, Joseto Tan Nery, filed a complaint on July 18, 1961, against the defendants (Dolores, Eufemia, Pedro, Felicitas, Elena, and Gaga Cabales, and Alejandro Torres) for the recovery of the said property.
Defendants' Defense
- The defendants claimed they had long been in possession of the disputed property.
- They argued that the plaintiff's property was confined to the western boundary of their land.
- They also contended that the plaintiff lacked legal capacity to sue because he had already sold the property to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP).
Amended Complaints
- On May 29, 1962, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, impleading the DBP as a party plaintiff, as Joseto Tan Nery had transferred the property to the DBP under a repurchase agreement.
- On June 16, 1962, the amended complaint was withdrawn, and another amended complaint was filed on June 30, 1962, impleading the DBP as a party defendant, as it was unwilling to be a co-plaintiff.
DBP's Response
- The DBP, in its answer dated May 13, 1963, stated that it had purchased the property at an auction sale on July 28, 1960, and later sold it back to the plaintiff under a Deed of Conditional Sale dated June 14, 1962.
- The DBP requested a survey to determine the plaintiff's right to the property, stating it could not join as a co-plaintiff or co-defendant without the survey.
Dismissal and Reinstatement of the Case
- On September 23, 1966, the case was dismissed without prejudice due to the non-appearance of the parties or their lawyers.
- The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on September 26, 1966, citing mistake or excusable negligence, as they were unaware of the hearing due to another case being heard on the same day.
- The trial court reinstated the case on October 1, 1966, and set the hearing for October 16, 1966.
Ex-Parte Proceedings
- On October 16, 1966, the defendants and their counsel failed to appear, leading the court to authorize the plaintiff to present evidence ex-parte.
- On November 16, 1966, the court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to vacate the property and pay damages.
Petition for Relief
- The defendants' counsel, Atty. Augusto G. Maderazo, filed a petition for relief on January 24, 1967, claiming excusable negligence due to misplacing the notice of hearing.
- The trial court denied the petition on March 3, 1967, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision on April 15, 1970.
Issue:
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's denial of the petition for relief from judgment.
- Whether the Court of Appeals failed to consider the affidavit of surveyor Francisco P. Lumasag, which stated that the defendants' land was outside the plaintiff's property.
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, denying the petition for relief from judgment.
- The Court held that the negligence of the defendants' counsel did not constitute excusable negligence under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court.
- The affidavit of Francisco P. Lumasag was not properly pleaded in the trial court and could not be raised for the first time on appeal.
Ratio:
- Excusable Negligence: The Court ruled that the negligence of the defendants' counsel, Atty. Maderazo, in misplacing the notice of hearing did not qualify as excusable negligence. Counsel's forgetfulness and lack of diligence in handling the case were not sufficient grounds for relief under Rule 38.
- Binding Effect of Counsel's Negligence: The Court emphasized that a client is bound by the actions (or inactions) of their counsel. The negligence of the lawyer is imputed to the client, and the client cannot claim relief based on the lawyer's mistakes.
- Discretion of the Trial Court: The matter of granting relief from failure to appear at trial is largely discretionary with the trial judge, and such discretion should not be interfered with unless there is a clear abuse.
- Proper Pleading of Defenses: The Court reiterated that defenses must be specifically pleaded in the trial court. The affidavit of Francisco P. Lumasag, which was not raised in the trial court, could not be considered for the first time on appeal.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the defendants failed to establish excusable negligence and that the affidavit of the surveyor could not be considered as it was not properly pleaded in the trial court.