Case Digest (G.R. No. L-14968)
Facts:
George McEntee v. Perpetua Manotok, G.R. No. L-14968, October 27, 1961, the Supreme Court En Banc, Labrador, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff George McEntee filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Laguna to recover possession of a parcel in Barrio Bangbang, Los Baños, Laguna, alleging ownership under a free patent and Original Certificate of Title No. P-56 (7,273 sq. meters), continuous possession since 1926, and that defendant Perpetua Manotok unlawfully entered and occupied about 1,000 sq. meters in November 1952, taking fruits and improvements; he prayed for recovery of possession, damages of P1,000 and attorney’s fees.
Defendant answered asserting that plaintiff’s free patent was obtained by fraud and that plaintiff (or his predecessor) never occupied or complied with requirements for a free patent; she alleged the land was embraced by her prior Miscellaneous Lease Application No. V-194 and counterclaimed for annulment of plaintiff’s title and P3,000 damages. She attached to her answer administrative petitions filed with the Bureau of Lands and the Director’s order directing investigation of her charges.
The trial court granted defendant’s motion for preliminary injunction after a May 19, 1955 preliminary hearing. The case was set for trial July 1, 1955 and later reset for September 8, 1955 at defendant’s request. On the September date, plaintiff’s counsel, Atty. Bernardo Q. Aldana, failed to appear and filed an unverified urgent petition for transfer alleging serious illness but without a medical certificate. Over defendant’s objection the trial court denied the continuance, allowed defendant to present evidence ex parte, and later dismissed the complaint for failure to prosecute, making the preliminary injunction permanent.
Plaintiff moved for reconsideration and for a new trial, alleging accident/excusable negligence (counsel’s illness), attachment of a subsequent medical affidavit, and the indefeasibility of his Torrens title; the trial court denied the motion. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for continuance and dismissing the complaint for failure to prosecute because plaintiff’s counsel was absent due to sudden illness?
- Was plaintiff entitled to relief (a new trial/remand) in view of his asserted meritorious claim of ownership under a free patent and Torrens certificate which would make di...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)