Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21057)
Facts:
Rizalino Sosa, in his own behalf and in behalf of Antonia Sosa de Rivera and Abraham Salva v. Domingo Yu Chu and Yu Chu Investment Corporation, G.R. No. L-21057, June 30, 1970, Supreme Court En Banc, Dizon, J., writing for the Court.The plaintiffs-appellants (Rizalino Sosa, Antonia Sosa de Rivera and Abraham Salva) sued defendants-appellees (Domingo Yu Chu and Yu Chu Investment Corporation) in Civil Case No. 1166, Court of First Instance of Marinduque, to recover ownership and possession of one-half of a parcel of coconut land (or its value), to compel an accounting for fruits and benefits, and for attorney’s fees and costs. The complaint, filed June 25, 1959, alleged that the land was originally owned by spouses Casto Sosa and Victorina Soleta de Sosa; Victorina died in 1927 and her one-half conjugal share descended to her children/grandchild (the appellants). On November 15, 1928, Casto Sosa executed a deed of sale with pacto de retro over the entire parcel in favor of Domingo Yu Chu; that deed was registered June 22, 1929. Appellants alleged Yu Chu thus possessed the whole parcel but could not validly convey Victorina’s one-half share which had passed to her heirs; Yu Chu later sold the land (1958) to Yu Chu Investment Corporation, which remained in possession despite appellants’ demands.
The defendants answered within the reglementary period, alleging that Yu Chu purchased the entire land in 1928 from the then exclusive owner and possessor, Casto Sosa, and that Yu Chu Investment Corporation was an innocent purchaser for value in whose name the property was later titled.
The case was originally set for trial October 30, 1962; appellants obtained a postponement and the court reset trial to December 20, 1962. On December 20 one plaintiff appeared but appellants’ counsel (Atty. Cecilio L. Pe) did not; a telegram shown to the court indicated counsel had received the notice only the day before and could not appear. Defense counsel prayed for dismissal for non-suit for plaintiffs’ inability to present their evidence, and the trial court granted dismissal with costs. Notice of the order was received by appellants January 14, 1963.
Appellants filed a motion for reconsideration January 16, 1963 (praying for a new trial date), which the trial court denied January 23, 1963. Within the reglementary period they then filed a verified motion for new trial supported by two affidavits of their counsel: one asserting accident/excusable negligence in counsel’s non-appearance (notice received only December 19, 1962), and the other describing documentary evidence (original certificate of title showing “married,” declaration of real property, marriage contract, birth and death certificates, and the deed of sale with pacto de retro...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in dismissing the complaint for non-suit because appellants’ counsel failed to appear due to accident or excusable negligence?
- Did the trial court err in denying appellants’ motion for new trial supported by affidavits attesting to accident/excusable negligence and documentary evidence suggesting the sale was void as t...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)