Case Summary (G.R. No. 159699)
Background of the Case
On May 23, 2001, the respondents filed an amended complaint against the petitioners to annul the Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of Jesus P. Acance, executed on February 10, 1997. This settlement involved two parcels of land in Muntinlupa City and the associated improvements. The respondents, claiming to be the legitimate children of Angela Paglicawan from a previous marriage, argued that the properties in question were acquired during her marriage with Vernier Quijano, thus making them heirs.
Allegations of Forgery and Lack of Volition
The respondents asserted that Angela’s signature on the settlement was a result of forgery or that it was executed without her consent due to her senility at the time. They contended that this invalidated the extra-judicial settlement and rendered the subsequent Transfer Certificates of Titles (TCT) void.
Court's Initial Action
On April 26, 2002, the RTC declared the petitioners in default for failing to respond to the amended complaint. Subsequently, against this default status, Rosalino Acance filed a motion to lift the order. He claimed that he had not received proper notice of the proceedings and that he was misled to believe his participation was still under consideration by the court.
Denial of Motion to Lift Default
The RTC denied the motion to lift the default order, ruling that the petitioners had been properly served through publication and that the period to file an answer had lapsed. The court emphasized that the non-residency of the petitioners was irrelevant and highlighted their failure to meet the timelines established for responding to the complaint.
Certiorari and Appellate Review
In response, the petitioners filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse of discretion due to the RTC's denial of their motion to lift the default order. They posited that not filing a motion for reconsideration was justified under the circumstances.
Appellate Court’s Rulings
The Court of Appeals dismissed the certiorari petition based on the petitioners' failure to file a motion for reconsideration as a procedural prerequisite. The petitioners contested this ruling, arguing that exceptions to the rule applied, including urgency and previously raised jurisdictional issues.
Supreme Court Decision
Upon review, the Supreme Court found that while it is generally necessary to file a motion for reconsideration prior to a certiorari petition, exceptions existed. The Court ruled that the circumstances warranted this exception due to the urgency involved and the failure of the RTC to properly serve summons in compliance with the rules concerning extraterritorial service. The Court specifically noted that there was inadequate proof of proper service both through registered mail and
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 159699)
Overview of the Case
- The case involves a petition for review on certiorari filed by Rosalino P. Acance, acting as attorney-in-fact for the Acance siblings, against the Court of Appeals and several respondents regarding a default order in a civil case.
- The petitioners seek to reverse the appellate court's resolutions dated November 29, 2002, and August 27, 2003, which dismissed their certiorari petition for not filing a motion for reconsideration with the court a quo.
Background Facts
- On May 23, 2001, the respondents filed an amended complaint seeking to annul an Extra-Judicial Settlement of the Estate of deceased Jesus P. Acance.
- The complaint alleged that the properties in question were conjugal properties of Angela Paglicawan and Vernier Quijano, and thus the respondents had rights to inherit as legitimate children.
- The Acance siblings, petitioners in this case, claimed the properties were acquired by their mother, Angela, during her relationship with Jesus Acance.
- The court a quo declared the Acance siblings in default on April 26, 2002, for failing to file an answer to the amended complaint.
Legal Proceedings
- Rosalino Acance filed a motion to lift the order of default, claiming he was appointed as private prosecutor and had not received the original complaint. This motion was denied.
- The petitioners subsequently filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, alleging that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in denying their motion to lift the default order.