Case Digest (G.R. No. L-600)
Facts:
Soledad Pena de Luz v. The Court of First Instance of Leyte, G.R. No. L-600, October 01, 1946, the Supreme Court En Banc, Perfecto, J., writing for the Court. The resolution concerns the validity of a decision rendered March 24, 1944, granting Simeon D. Luz a divorce from his wife Soledad Pena.On September 26, 1940, Simeon D. Luz married Soledad Pena in Manila and they established their conjugal abode; a son, Cesar, was born July 11, 1941. Luz alleged that on July 20, 1941, his wife abandoned him by going to her mother at Sinait, Ilocos Sur, and that after unsuccessful efforts to secure her return he filed a complaint for divorce in the Court of First Instance of Leyte on September 22, 1943. The complaint invoked Executive Order No. 141 (March 25, 1943), issued by the Chairman of the Philippine Executive Commission and said to repeal and supersede Act No. 2710.
Service of summons and a copy of the complaint on Soledad Pena at Sinait was returned by the sheriff as having been made January 20, 1944. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss on January 13, 1944, which Judge Froilan Bayona denied in an order dated April 1, 1944; the defendant’s attorney received a copy of the denial on May 12, 1944, and that same date deposited an answer in the mail which arrived at the Leyte court June 23, 1944. On February 24, 1944, plaintiff’s counsel moved to declare the defendant in default; after a postponement the court declared defendant in default March 18, 1944, and the court rendered judgment on March 24, 1944.
Subsequent motions for alimony pendente lite and for relief were filed by the defendant’s attorney in 1945; on October 23, 1945, Judge Fernando Hernandez issued an order denying an ex parte motion on the ground the case had been decided March 24, 1944. Various motions to set aside the judgment were denied (February 9, 1946; April 13, 1946). Petitioner then brought a proceeding to the Supreme Court under the Rules governing petitions relating to acts or omissions of courts or judges, but the matter could not be decisively resolved without compliance with procedural joinder requirements. The Supreme Court noted the pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the petitioner comply with the joinder requirement of Rule 67, Sec. 5, and should Simeon D. Luz be joined as a party respondent?
- Is the decision of March 24, 1944, granting Mr. Luz a divorce void for want of due process (i.e., by denying the defendant ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)