Case Digest (G.R. No. 195472)
Facts:
The case revolves around the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed by petitioners Samson Lim Bio Tian and Johnson Lim Bio Tiong against respondent Joaquin Lim Eng Tian. The dispute originated from a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 81239, co-owned by the three parties. Joaquin sought to partition the land, but both petitioners declined his demands, prompting him to file a partition complaint. Following the filing, summons and complaints were duly served to the petitioners, leading them to file their respective pleadings. A pre-trial conference was scheduled for December 8, 2008, during which only Joaquin and Johnson appeared; Samson did not attend, nor did he file a pre-trial brief. Consequently, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) allowed Joaquin to present his evidence ex parte due to the absence of the petitioners.Samson later filed a motion for reconsideration claiming his counsel's absence was due to a mandatory seminar, while Jo
Case Digest (G.R. No. 195472)
Facts:
- Parties and Subject Matter
- The petitioners, Samson Lim Bio Tian and Johnson Lim Bio Tiong, and the respondent, Joaquin Lim Eng Tian, are co-owners of a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 81239.
- A dispute arose regarding the partition of the land when the respondent demanded its partition and the petitioners refused to cooperate, thereby prompting the filing of an action for partition by the respondent.
- Background of the Case
- After the complaint for partition was filed by Joaquin, summons and copies of the complaint were duly served on the petitioners, who in turn filed their respective pleadings.
- The case was scheduled for a pre-trial conference by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 258, Parañaque City, on December 8, 2008.
- Pre-Trial Conference Proceedings
- Notifications were sent to all parties and their counsels regarding the pre-trial conference. However, when the case was called:
- Only Joaquin and Johnson, along with their respective counsels, appeared.
- Johnson filed his pre-trial brief on the day of the conference, while Samson and his counsel were absent.
- Consequently, the RTC issued an order on December 8, 2008, noting the failure of both petitioners to file a pre-trial brief and allowing Joaquin to present his evidence ex parte.
- Motions for Reconsideration and RTC Decisions
- On December 18, 2008, Samson filed a motion for reconsideration of the RTC’s December 8 order, citing that his counsel’s absence was due to attendance at a seminar for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE); however, he provided no justification for his own non-appearance.
- Johnson similarly filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that choosing to hand-deliver the pre-trial brief rather than filing it by mail was due to concerns over timely delivery.
- The RTC, on March 13, 2009, granted the petitioners’ motions for reconsideration, allowing them to cross-examine Joaquin and to submit their pre-trial brief, with a cross-examination session scheduled for May 4, 2009.
- Subsequent Developments and Appellate Review
- Joaquin moved for reconsideration of the RTC’s order on March 13, 2009; however, his motion was denied on August 17, 2009.
- Dissatisfied with the RTC’s rulings, Joaquin filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
- On July 26, 2010, the CA nullified the RTC orders:
- The CA held that Samson had not provided any valid excuse for his absence at the pre-trial conference or for failing to file the pre-trial brief.
- It deemed Johnson’s reason for personal filing of his brief insufficient and found that the liberal construction of procedural rules did not waive the strict adherence to requirements.
- A motion for reconsideration by the petitioners before the CA was likewise denied on February 9, 2011.
- Final Partition Proceedings
- Independently, on February 21, 2013, the RTC rendered a decision in the action for partition, affirming that the respondent was entitled to demand the partition of the land.
- The trial court denied the petitioners’ notice of appeal, citing tardiness, and the CA subsequently affirmed the RTC’s decision.
- The CA judgment became final and executory on December 15, 2016.
Issues:
- Justiciability of the Petition
- Whether the petition presents a justiciable controversy after the decision on the main action for partition has become final and executory.
- Procedural Inquiry
- Whether the respondent should be allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff after the trial court had permitted the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte.
- Mootness of the Petition
- Whether the issues raised in the petition have become moot and academic in view of the final and executory decision rendered on the partition matter.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)