Case Summary (G.R. No. L-31987)

Background of the Case

• Joseto Tan Nery filed a complaint against Dolores, Eufemia, Pedro, Felicitas, Elena, and Gaga Cabales, along with Alejandro Torres, for recovery of a portion of real property in Cagayan de Oro City.
• The defendants claimed long possession of the property and argued that the plaintiff had sold the property to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), thus lacking legal capacity to sue.
• An amended complaint was filed, initially adding DBP as a co-plaintiff, but later as a defendant after DBP expressed unwillingness to join as a co-plaintiff.

Proceedings and Dismissal

• The case was dismissed without prejudice on September 23, 1966, due to the non-appearance of both parties.
• A motion for reconsideration was filed, claiming the absence was due to a scheduling conflict with another case.
• The trial court reinstated the case, allowing the plaintiff to present evidence ex-parte after the defendants failed to appear again.

Judgment and Petition for Relief

• On November 16, 1966, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendants to vacate the property and pay damages.
• The defendants' counsel, Atty. Augusto G. Maderazo, filed a petition for relief on January 24, 1967, citing accident, mistake, or excusable negligence for failing to appear at the hearing.

Denial of Petition for Relief

• The trial court denied the petition for relief on March 3, 1967, leading to an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, prompting the petitioners to seek a review on certiorari.

Grounds for Review

• Petitioners alleged that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by not granting the petition for relief.
• They contended that the affidavit of surveyor Francisco P. Lumasag, which stated their land was outside the plaintiff's claim, was not considered.
• The petitioners argued that the timing of their petition for relief was proper, as it was filed within the allowable period after receiving the decision.

Legal Standards for Relief from Judgment

• The court emphasized that relief from judgment under Rule 38 is not absolute and is limited to cases involving fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence.
• The reason provided by the petitioners' counsel for non-appearance was deemed insufficient to justify relief, as it stemmed from a lack of diligence.

Counsel's Negligence and Client Responsibility

• The court noted that the negligence of the counsel is binding on the clients, and clients cannot claim relief based on their counsel's mistakes.
• The court highlighted the importance of...continue reading

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-31987)

Case Background

• The case involves a petition for review on certiorari regarding a decision made by the Court of Appeals.
• Petitioners are Dolores, Eufemia, Pedro, Felicitas, Elena, and Gaga Cabales, along with Alejandro Torres.
• The respondents are Joseto Tan Nery and the Honorable Court of Appeals.
• The original complaint was filed by Tan Nery on July 18, 1961, in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, seeking recovery of a real property located in barrio Agusan, Cagayan de Oro City, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 30 (now TCT No. T-3254).

Legal Issues Presented

• Defendants argued that they had long possessed the disputed property and claimed that Tan Nery had no legal standing to sue since he had sold the property to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP).
• The plaintiff later amended the complaint to include the DBP as a defendant after it became clear that DBP was an unwilling co-plaintiff.

Proceedings and Decisions

• On September 23, 1966, the case was dismissed without prejudice due to nonappearance of parties.
• A motion for reconsideration was filed, stating that the absence was due t...continue reading