G.R. No. L-20752 - IN RE: Yu vs. Republic

Respondent State Properties Corporation filed a verified complaint for recovery of property based on ownership on March 23, 1999, with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas.
The complaint, which included an application for a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction, sought judgment confirming the respondent’s right to take possession of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. S-17992 and its improvements, thereby excluding the heirs of the late Benito Gonzales, including petitioner Gonzalo R. Gonzales.

Summons was duly served on petitioner Gonzalo Gonzales.
Petitioner, along with other defendants who were the heirs, became involved in procedural motions regarding the raffle process.

On April 15, 1998, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion requesting a new raffle on the ground that notice, as required by Administrative Circular No. 20-95, was not properly served to some defendants.
Private respondent filed a manifestation indicating no objection to the petitioner’s motion, and petitioner subsequently filed his Answer.
A Motion for Service of Summons by Publication was later filed by private respondent for defendants whose residences could not be ascertained despite diligent inquiry.
The RTC (Branch 253) granted the motion at a hearing on May 21, 1999, and a Notice of Raffle was subsequently issued for July 30, 1999.
At the scheduled raffle on July 30, 1999, petitioner’s counsel opposed the procedure on the ground that the other defendants had not received proper notice, citing Administrative Circular No. 20-95.
In response, the presiding judge ordered that no raffle would be conducted and advised the affected parties to seek clarification regarding the application of the circular’s provisions.
Following a Motion for Reconsideration by private respondent and opposition by petitioner, a revised order was issued on August 30, 1999, setting the case for a regular raffle on September 8, 1999.
Ultimately, aside from petitioner’s objections, the case was fully processed—with the subsequent raffle on December 8, 1999, and a pretrial session held on May 9, 2000—and no other party raised complaints regarding the raffle notice.

Petitioner assailed a November 22, 1999 Decision of the Court of Appeals which had affirmed the RTC’s order holding the raffle despite the alleged procedural irregularity regarding notice.
The petition for review on certiorari was subsequently filed, challenging both the raffle procedure and the dismissal of his petition related to the improper service issues.

Whether the trial court’s procedure in conducting the raffle without giving notice to the adverse parties (or ensuring their presence) violates Section 4 (c) of Rule 58 which mandates notice to and in the presence of the adverse party prior to the raffle.

Petitioner contends that the mandatory requisites for notice and presence, as required before a raffle in a multiple-sala court, were not satisfied.
The petitioner argues that the provision allowing the dispensation of summons service in cases where personal service is impossible should not be read in isolation from related provisions ensuring mandatory notice.

Allowing the raffle to proceed without obtaining the service of summons by publication when the other defendants’ whereabouts were unknown.
Requiring that the case be raffled before the court could rule on the motion to serve summons by publication.
Dismissing the petition on the ground that the petitioner did not represent the allegedly affected parties and had been given notice himself.

Whether there are special and important reasons warranting a review of both the procedural handling (i.e., the requirement of notice in the auction) and the dismissal of the petition itself.