Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21743)
Facts:
Federico Canete and Pedro Rudas, Petitioners vs. Hon. Judge, Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Sur and Ganlay Amban, Respondents, G.R. No. L-21743, May 04, 1968, Supreme Court En Banc, Sanchez, J., writing for the Court.On January 29, 1960 private respondent Ganlay Amban filed Civil Case No. 577 in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Zamboanga del Sur for possession and damages against Federico Canete and Pedro Rudas. Amban alleged that Canete occupied a five-hectare portion of Amban’s eight-hectare parcel under a lease (P50/ha/yr) but later refused to pay rent and asserted ownership; Rudas was joined as co-defendant as Canete’s tenant. Canete’s answer (Feb. 29, 1960) asserted that he had purchased the five hectares in 1953 (deed executed 1955).
The case was set for hearing on October 18, 1962; petitioners and their counsel did not appear and the trial court directed plaintiff’s evidence to be taken ex parte. On November 23, 1962 the CFI rendered judgment in favor of Amban, holding (among other findings) that the purported deed of sale was not approved by the Provincial Governor as required for conveyances by members of non‑Christian tribes, and ordering defendants to vacate, pay P100/year as damages from filing, P200 attorneys’ fees, and costs. Petitioners received a copy of the decision on December 10, 1962.
Petitioners’ counsel filed an unverified motion dated November 27, 1962 to reconsider the October 18 order, asserting personal and family medical emergencies (wife’s operation and his own appendectomy) and pointing to an earlier March 7, 1961 order appointing a commissioner to relocate the land. By order of February 15, 1963 the CFI denied that motion. Amban moved for execution on January 24, 1963; the trial judge initially denied execution (Feb. 23, 1963) but, after Amban sought reconsideration, the court reheard the matter on March 20, 1963 (petitioners’ counsel absent) and on March 22, 1963 granted execution. Copies of the February 15 and March 22 orders were mailed March 15, 1963 and were shown received by petitioners’ counsel on April 3, 1963.
On April 22, 1963 petitioners filed in the CFI a petition for relief seeking to set aside the orders of October 18, 1962, February 15, 1963, March 22, 1963 and th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the hearing on October 18, 1962 and in receiving plaintiff’s evidence ex parte?
- Was petitioners’ petition for relief to the trial court and their subsequent resort to this Court timely under Rule 38, Section 3 (the 60-day period) and related rules on motions to relieve from judgments?
- Did petitioners’ petition for relief comply with the procedural requisites of Rule 38, Sec. 3 (verification and affidavit of merits)?
- On the merits, was the alleged deed of sale valid despite lacking approval of the Provincial Governor as required by the Adminis...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)