Case Summary (G.R. No. 11555)
Applicable Law
The case is governed by the provisions of the Philippine Rules of Court, particularly focusing on the concepts of default and the appealability of court orders. The precedent set in the case of Abesames vs. Garcia and Rule 41 of the Rules of Court are specifically referenced in relation to the interlocutory nature of the orders being contested.
Factual Background
The initial cases were dismissed by the trial court on April 19, 1978, for being premature. After the dismissal, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was granted on December 18, 1981. However, on February 20, 1984, an order was issued by Judge Severino C. Aguilar declaring Virata in default upon the motion from the petitioners. Subsequent motions by Virata to set aside this order were denied, and a further appeal was not given due course.
Procedural History
The trial court proceeded to set a hearing for the reception of evidence from the petitioners, wherein Mrs. Hoyo-a testified on March 6, 1985. In the interim, Virata managed to secure a resolution from the Intermediate Appellate Court, dated April 10, 1985, which mandated the trial court to elevate the records of the two cases for review.
Legal Issue
The central issue in this case is the appealability of an order denying a motion to set aside a prior order of default, as it distinguishes itself from the denial of a motion to set aside a judgment of default. The court addressed whether such an order is interlocutory and non-appealable, thereby requiring further judicial proceedings to be completed before finality could be reached.
Court Ruling
The court concluded that the order denying the motion to set aside the order of default is indeed interlocutory, as the trial court had yet to issue a judgment by default. To expedite resolution of the lengthy proceedings initiated in 1978, the court granted Virata an unextendable period of ten days from the notice of the judgment to respond to the complaints initiated by the petitioners. It instructed that after the petitioners respond to any counterclaims, pre-trial proceedings should be scheduled, a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 11555)
Case Overview
- The case revolves around the appealability of an order denying a motion to set aside an order of default, distinct from the denial of a motion to set aside a judgment by default.
- The petitioners, consisting of Marciana Hoyo-a and her eight children, initiated legal action against Dominador Virata concerning two injunction cases.
Background of the Case
- In 1978, the petitioners filed two injunction cases against Virata to restrain him from occupying portions of two homesteads with areas of sixteen and eight hectares, which were applied for by Marciana's deceased husband, Heracleo Hoyo-a, and by Marciana herself.
- The homesteads are located in Lot No. 2527 at Sitio Labilabi, Barrio Mabini, Escalante, Negros Occidental.
- The trial court dismissed the two cases on April 19, 1978, deeming them premature.
Developments in the Trial Court
- Following the dismissal, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was granted by Judge Corpuz-Macandog on December 18, 1981.
- On February 20, 1984, Virata was declared in default by Judge Severino C. Aguilar upon the pe