Case Digest (G.R. No. 125154)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 125154)
Facts:
Digna Vergel, Eduardo Salvacruz, Beatriz Manacop, Felicisima Flores, Generoso Salvacruz, Blandino Salvacruz, Milagros Salvacruz and the Heirs of Corazon Santiago v. Court of Appeals and Dorotea Tamisin Gonzales, G.R. No. 125154, September 28, 2001, the Supreme Court First Division, Pardo, J., writing for the Court.On May 26, 1994, petitioners filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Calamba, Laguna an application for registration (LRC Case No. 88-94-C) of a 1,176-sq.m. parcel in Barrio Batong Malake, Los Baños, Laguna for titling purposes. On July 20, 1994, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Director of Lands, filed an opposition. The RTC thereafter issued an order of general default dated December 15, 1994 “against the whole world with the exception of Republic of the Philippines.”
On October 3, 1995, respondent Dorotea Tamisin Gonzales filed with the RTC an “Urgent Motion to Set Aside the Order of General Default,” supported by an affidavit asserting that she claimed ownership of the land and had not received personal notice of the registration application; petitioners opposed the motion. Respondent then filed a reply to petitioners’ opposition and an “Urgent Motion” to suspend the proceedings on October 12, 1995.
The RTC denied respondent’s motion to set aside the order of general default and to suspend proceedings in an order dated October 18, 1995, then denied her motion for reconsideration in an order dated November 28, 1995. On December 13, 1995, respondent brought a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. SP No. 39239) alleging that the trial judge acted capriciously, without or in excess of jurisdiction, and gravely abused his discretion in issuing the two orders.
On April 2, 1998, the Court of Appeals (Mabutas, Jr., J., ponente; Gonzaga‑Reyes and Valdez, Jr., JJ., concurring) promulgated a decision annulling the RTC orders of October 18 and November 28, 1995, and set aside the RTC’s order of general default insofar as respondent was concerned. Petitioners then filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, which was given due course; the Supreme Court resolved the appeal by the present decision.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in setting aside the RTC’s order of general default in the land registration case without making a specific finding of fraud, accident, or excusable neglect that would justify lifting the default?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)