Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1906 > November 1906 Decisions > G.R. No. 2095 November 13, 1906 - MARIA ADELA v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE

006 Phil 674:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 2095. November 13, 1906. ]

MARIA ADELA, Petitioner, v. THE JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ILOCOS SUR, Respondent.

Vicente Foz, for Petitioner.

Del-Pan Ortigas, & Fisher, for Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. SERVICE; NONAPPEARANCE; MISTAKE OF LAW. — A defendant, duly served with the summons in a civil action, stated in writing to the officer making the service that by reason of sickness he could not make a journey to the capital of the province for the purpose of appearing in the action. This writing was attached to the record and judgment was thereafter entered against by him by default. Held, That the judgment could not be set aside under the provisions of section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure.


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


This is an original proceedings in this court brought under the provisions of section 513 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides in part as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"When a judgment is rendered by a Court of First Instance upon default, and a party thereto is unjustly deprived of a hearing by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, . . . the party so deprived of a hearing may present his petition to the Supreme Court within sixty days after he first learns of the rendition of such judgment, and not thereafter, setting forth the facts and praying to have such judgment set aside."cralaw virtua1aw library

It appears that Jose Bona commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur against Celestino Mina to recover the sum of 5,825.75 pesos. The summons in the action was duly served upon the defendant therein on the 24th of November, 1902. At the time of the service the defendant, Celestino Mina, delivered to the municipal president who made the service a statement in writing to the effect that by reason of sickness he could not make a journey in order to appear before the Court of First Instance, and he presented at the same time a doctor’s certificate to the effect that he was suffering from a disease of the lungs and could not travel either in a vehicle or on horseback. On the 25th of February, 1903, the plaintiff amended his complaint, reducing the amount claimed therein to 5,725.75 pesos. A new summons was issued and duly served upon the defendant, Celestino Mina, on the 9th of March, 1903. The defendant then delivered to the municipal president who made the service a statement in writing of the same nature as one delivered in November, and another doctor’s certificate to the same effect as the former one. These papers were forwarded to the office of the clerk of the court were united to the expediente in the case.

Mina never appeared nor answered, and on the 15th of August, 1903, final judgment was entered against him by default for the recovery of the sum of P5,725.75 pesos, and costs. The defendant, Mina, died on the 7th of November, 1903. This proceeding was instituted by his widow, who claims to be a person interested in the case.

The defendant, Jose, Bona, in his answer in this proceedings, alleges that plaintiff can not maintain it. We have not found it necessary to decide this question because we think the facts in the case do not bring it within the provisions of section 513. The defendant, Celestino Mina, was duly served with process. It was not necessary for him to appear personally in the Court of First Instance; he could have employed a lawyer to appear for him. The fact that he was sick and not attending personally in court, was no excuse for his failure to employ some one to appear for him. It is probable that his failure to appear was due to his erroneous belief take he must appear there personally. This was a mistake of law and for such mistakes relief can not, as a general rule, be granted. (Zulueta v. Zulueta, 1 Phil. Rep., 254; Guevara v. Tuason & Co., 1 Phil. Rep., 27.) We hold that the petition should be denied, with costs. After expiration of ten days let judgment be rendered in accordance herewith. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-1906 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 2127 November 1, 1906 - INCHAUSTI & CO. v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 556

  • G.R. No. 2146 November 1, 1906 - MANUEL TESTAGORDA FIGUERAS v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 573

  • G.R. No. 2970 November 1, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE CRAME

    006 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. 2189 November 3, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FRANCISCO BAUTISTA

    006 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. 2791 November 5, 1906 - CATALINO NICOLAS v. MARIA JOSE

    006 Phil 589

  • G.R. No. 1794 November 6, 1906 - FAUSTINO LICHAUCO v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    006 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 1935 November 6, 1906 - CLARA ALFONSO BUENAVENTURA v. COMMANDING GENERAL

    006 Phil 600

  • G.R. No. 2731 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. CHAUNCEY MCGOVERN

    006 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 2783 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ATANASIO PARCON

    006 Phil 632

  • G.R. No. 3294 November 6, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BUENAVENTURA SERRANO

    006 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 2686 November 8, 1906 - C. HEINSZEN & CO. v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT CO.

    006 Phil 641

  • G.R. No. 3082 November 8, 1906 - RAMONA TARROSA v. P. A. PEARSON

    006 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 2384 November 9, 1906 - In re DOMINADOR GOMEZ

    006 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. 2903 November 9, 1906 - ESTEFANIA VILLAR v. CITY OF MANILA

    006 Phil 655

  • G.R. No. 1326 November 10, 1906 - FELIX FANLO AZNAR v. RAFAEL RODRIGUEZ

    006 Phil 659

  • G.R. No. 2556 November 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. SOFIO OPINION

    006 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. 2968 November 10, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANGELO VINCO

    006 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 3309 November 10, 1906 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. A. A. MONTAGNE

    006 Phil 667

  • G.R. No. 3270 November 12, 1906 - LUISA RAMOS v. CARLOS VARANDA

    006 Phil 670

  • G.R. No. 2095 November 13, 1906 - MARIA ADELA v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE

    006 Phil 674

  • G.R. No. 3182 November 13, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE SOLIS

    006 Phil 676

  • G.R. No. 2101 November 15, 1906 - ELEANOR ERICA STRONG v. FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ REPIDE

    006 Phil 680

  • G.R. No. 2892 November 16, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. FELIX ORTEGA

    006 Phil 728

  • G.R. No. L-2834 November 21, 1906 - JUAN AZARRAGA v. ANDREA CORTES

    009 Phil 698

  • G.R. No. 2394 November 22, 1906 - KER & CO. v. A. R. CAUDEN

    006 Phil 732

  • G.R. No. 3106 November 22, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE PAUA

    006 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. 3387 November 22, 1906 - T. SUGO v. GEORGE GREEN

    006 Phil 744

  • G.R. No. 3388 November 22, 1906 - TATSUSABURO YEGAWA v. GEORGE GREEN

    006 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. L-2563 November 23, 1906 - RICARDO NOLAN v. ANTONIO SALAS

    007 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-2897 November 23, 1906 - PEDRO MAGUYON v. MARCELINO AGRA

    007 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-2958 November 23, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. BRAULIO TUPULAR

    007 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. L-3025 November 23, 1906 - SI-BOCO v. YAP TENG

    007 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. L-3393 November 23, 1906 - CLEMENTE GOCHUICO v. MANUEL OCAMPO

    007 Phil 15

  • G.R. No. L-2017 November 24, 1906 - MUNICIPALITY OF OAS v. BARTOLOME ROA

    007 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. L-2408 November 24, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. JOSEPH J. CAPURRO, ET AL.

    007 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-2644 November 24, 1906 - DENNIS J. DOUGHERTY v. JOSE EVANGELISTA

    007 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. L-2832 November 24, 1906 - REV. JORGE BARLIN v. P. VICENTE RAMIREZ

    007 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-2842 November 24, 1906 - ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, ET AL. v. LEONARDO SANTOS

    007 Phil 66

  • G.R. No. L-2697 November 27, 1906 - JUSTIANO MENDIOLA v. CLAUDIA MENDIOLA

    007 Phil 71

  • G.R. No. L-2835 November 27, 1906 - FELICIANO ALFONSO v. RAMON LAGDAMEO

    007 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-2498 November 28, 1906 - MARCELO TIGLAO v. INSULAR GOVERNMENT ET AL.

    007 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. L-2914 November 28, 1906 - UNITED STATES v. ANTONIO GAVIRA

    007 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-2638 November 30, 1906 - AGATONA TUASON v. IGNACIA USON

    007 Phil 85

  • G.R. No. L-3378 November 30, 1906 - JOSE CASTAÑO v. CHARLES S. LOBINGIER

    007 Phil 91