G.R. No. L-11647 - Navarro vs. Bello

This case involves a petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by petitioners Florentino Navarro and Beatriz Vinoya.
The petition challenges a decision of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan dated July 30, 1956.
The challenged decision dismissed the complaint which sought the annulment of transfer certificates of title Nos. 15967 and 15968 and the corresponding deeds of sale executed by respondents Florencio Galicia and Consolacion Bautista in favor of respondents Juan Cabuang and Florentina Bautista.

On September 30, 1954, the petitioners filed their complaint (Civil Case No. 13099) asserting:

Ownership and right to possession of two parcels of land (lots Nos. 20774 and 32540, as described in the San Carlos Cadastre).
That the respondents had, through alleged force and intimidation, usurped the possession of these parcels from the petitioners’ tenants.
The annulment of the transfer certificates and deeds of sale was prayed for, asserting that the original transfer was unlawful.

Claimed ownership over the disputed lots.
Asserted that the petitioners were guilty of illegally depriving them of possession.
Filed a counterclaim seeking damages based on the alleged wrongful usurpation executed through force and intimidation.

The petitioners were declared in default on the counterclaim after failing to file an answer to the counterclaim within the prescribed period.
The order declaring default was issued on February 2, 1955, without notice being furnished to petitioners or their counsel.

Evidence for the respondents was received on February 8, 1955, through the deputy clerk of court, following the order of default.
Based on the evidence presented by respondents, the court rendered a decision on July 30, 1956, adjudicating the respondents as owners of the disputed parcels and dismissing the petitioners’ complaint.

The petitioners received a copy of the decision on August 7, 1956.
A first motion for reconsideration was filed on September 3, 1956, which was denied; the petitioners received notice of denial on October 1, 1956.
A second motion for reconsideration was filed on October 3, 1956, and likewise denied.
Notice of appeal was then filed on October 5, 1956, with a request for a fifteen-day extension to file the record on appeal and appeal bond, a request which was initially granted.
Upon objection by the respondents, on October 26, 1956, the court denied the petitioners’ request to approve the record on appeal, holding that the decision in question had become final and that, being declared in default, the petitioners lacked standing to appeal unless the default order was set aside.

The petitioners’ complaint asserted both ownership and the right to possession, including the claim that their possession had been restored by a writ issued by the Court of First Instance.
The respondents’ counterclaim, based on the same set of facts and defenses as in the answer, sought damages for the alleged wrongful act of usurpation by the petitioners.
It was determined that:

The issues raised in the counterclaim were essentially the same as those in the complaint and answer.
Answering the counterclaim would have required the petitioners to replead their original allegations.

The act of declaring the petitioners in default on the counterclaim was highly problematic since it prejudiced the petitioners’ right to be heard on the fundamental issues regarding ownership and possession.

Whether the court properly declared the petitioners in default on the counterclaim without serving due notice and affording them an opportunity to answer.
Whether the default on the counterclaim prejudiced the petitioners’ right to present evidence on the core issues of ownership and possession.

Whether the issues raised by the respondents’ counterclaim are so intertwined with those in the complaint and answer that a separate adjudication was impermissible before a full trial on the merits.
The implications of treating the counterclaim as a special defense that is inherently controverted, even without an express reply.

Whether the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating ownership and awarding damages in the context of pending trial issues.
Whether the court’s decision to dismiss the petitioners’ complaint and grant the respondents’ counterclaim was proper under the applicable procedural rules, particularly given the necessity to fully try the case on the merits.

Whether the petitioners’ motions for reconsideration and new trial, which were based on their being denied a fair opportunity to be heard, should have been granted despite the absence of affidavits of merits.