G.R. No. 2699 - Simon vs. Castro

In February 1904, respondents Claudia Castro and Irene Castro initiated an action in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga.
The suit was filed against Francisca Simon and Jose de Castro.

The summons was duly served upon Francisca Simon on the 10th day of February 1904.
Francisca Simon duly entered her appearance within the time required by law.

After entering her appearance, Francisca Simon, within the prescribed period, filed a demurrer to the complaint.
The demurrer was ultimately overruled by the Court of First Instance.
It is assumed that in the order overruling her demurrer, the court fixed a period within which she might have answered the complaint.

Despite having the right to answer the complaint (as provided by Section 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure), Francisca Simon did not file an answer, choosing instead to rely on her demurrer.
Consequently, on the 3rd day of April 1905, a judgment was rendered against her.
Notification of the judgment was duly given to her on the 4th day of April 1905.

Francisca Simon subsequently filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the 18th day of May 1905.
The petition sought the relief provided by Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is designed to set aside judgments rendered by default when a party is unjustly deprived of a hearing by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.

Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates that a party deprived of a hearing due to specific causes may petition the Supreme Court to set aside the judgment rendered by default.
The case of Blanco vs. Guerra (No. 2979, November 1905), where petitioners who had appeared and answered were denied relief under Section 513, was cited as a precedent, emphasizing that the provision does not apply when the party has participated in the proceedings.

Whether Francisca Simon, having duly appeared and filed a demurrer, can invoke Section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment rendered against her.

The issue focuses on whether her failure to file an answer constitutes a "default" within the meaning intended by Section 513.
It explores if her demurrer, though overruled, was sufficient to protect her rights in light of the procedural definitions set out in the Code.

Whether the judgment rendered against her qualifies as a “default judgment” as defined under Section 128 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The court must determine if the circumstances of her participation in the case preclude the characterization of the judgment as having been rendered by default.
The issue also compares her situation with the precedent (Blanco vs. Guerra) where petitioners who had appeared and answered were similarly found ineligible for relief under Section 513.