Title
Laurel vs. Vardeleon
Case
G.R. No. 202967
Decision Date
Aug 5, 2015
The Supreme Court reinstated Alicia Y. Laurel's case, criticizing the trial court for failing to act on pending motions and prematurely dismissing for lack of prosecution.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 202967)

Facts:

  • Alicia Y. Laurel, represented by her heir Juan Miguel Y. Laurel, filed a complaint against Ferdinand M. Vardeleon.
  • The complaint was for recovery of possession and ownership, and for quieting of title regarding a 20,306-square meter island in Caticlan, Malay, Aklan.
  • The case was assigned to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan, under Civil Case No. 7249.
  • Vardeleon denied the allegations, claiming he purchased the island from Avelina Casimero in 1973 and accused Laurel of laches for delaying her claim.
  • Several hearings were scheduled for evidence presentation on September 7, October 12, and November 23, 2005.
  • On September 2, 2005, Laurel's counsel requested to reschedule the September 7 hearing to October 12, which the court granted with conditions.
  • During the October 12 hearing, Laurel sought to postpone the trial due to unresolved motions and absence of her primary counsel, but the RTC denied the request and dismissed the case for failure to prosecute.
  • Laurel's motion for reconsideration was denied, and her appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) was affirmed, with the CA's decision issued on October 13, 2011, and a motion for reconsideration denied on June 20, 2012.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the RTC.
  • The dismissal of Civil Case No. 7249 was set ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court stated that the key test for failure to prosecute is whether the plaintiff lacked due diligence in pursuing the case.
  • The Court noted that the petitioner had actively participated in hearings and sought to present evidence, indicating no unwillingness to prosecute.
  • The trial court erred in dismissing the case after only two hearings, especially since three hearings had been agreed upon during pre-trial.
  • The request for a continuance was deemed reasonable due to the petitioner's advanced age and the case's circumstances.
  • The trial...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.