Case Digest (G.R. No. 10174)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 10174)
Facts:
Duran v. Arboleda, G.R. No. 6751, September 16, 1911, the Supreme Court, Moreland, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee was Jose Duran and the defendant-appellant was Maria Arboleda.The case arose after the trial court overruled a demurrer to the complaint in an oral order delivered in court at the conclusion of the hearing; in that oral order the court allowed the defendant five days within which to answer. No written notice of the order overruling the demurrer was served upon the defendant or her counsel; the only notice she received was the oral rendition in open court. When no answer had been filed by the sixth day, the plaintiff moved to have the defendant declared in default and for leave to prove the allegations of his complaint. Minutes after that motion, the defendant appeared and tendered her answer, which the trial court refused to receive because it was not filed within the five days granted upon the overruling of her demurrer. The trial court thereupon entered an order declaring the defendant in default, received the plaintiff’s proofs, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff.
The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as error (1) that she had no notice of the plaintiff’s motion to declare her in default and (2) that the trial court should have received her answer filed on the sixth day because her time to answer had not yet expired under the rules of court. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, ordering that the defendant’s answer be received and the cause proceed to trial in due form. A motion for rehearing was filed and denied on December 15, 1911; in denying rehearing Moreland, J., clarified that the required written notice under the rules is to be served upon the attorney of record rather than necessarily upon the party personally. Torres, Mapa, and Johnson, JJ., concurred; Carson, J., concurred in the result.
Issues:
- Must a defendant who has failed to answer within the time prescribed by the rules be given additional notice of a plaintiff’s motion to declare the defendant in default and to take proof on the complaint?
- Did the trial court err in refusing to receive an answer filed on the sixth day after an oral overruling of a demurrer where Rule 9 requires written notice and a five‑day period to answer after service?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)