ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-9456 & L-9481 January 6, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DOMINGO DE LARA

    102 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-9692 January 6, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    102 Phil 822

  • G.R. Nos. L-8845-46 January 7, 1958 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. MARTIN SOUZA

    102 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-10202 January 8, 1958 - IN RE: SY CHHUT alias TAN BING TIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-10420 January 10, 1958 - IN RE: LIM KIM So alias FRANCISCO LIM KIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 843

  • G.R. Nos. L-10249-60 January 14, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO CRISOSTOMO

    102 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. L-10285 January 14, 1958 - SAMPAGUITA SHOE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    102 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-10423 January 21, 1958 - AMADO P. JALANDONI v. ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON

    102 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-11000 January 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA RAPIRAP

    102 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-11014 January 21, 1958 - VICTORIANA ESPIRITU v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

    102 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. L-10196 January 22, 1958 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY v. CITY OF CEBU

    102 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-10776 January 23, 1958 - MELITON HERRERA v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-10922 January 23, 1958 - GREGORIO P. DE GUZMAN v. JOSE B. RAMOSO

    102 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-12294 January 23, 1958 - UNITED PEPSI-COLA SALES ORGANIZATION (PAFLU) v. HON. ANTONIO CA‘IZARES

    102 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-10234 January 24, 1958 - IN RE: Victoriano Yap Subieng to be admitted a citizen of the Phil.; VICTORIANO YAP SUBIENG v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-9689 January 27, 1958 - JESUS T. QUIAMBAO v. PEDRO R. PERALTA

    102 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-10806 January 27, 1958 - DAVID AZNAR v. ASUNCION SUCILLA

    102 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-11093 January 27, 1958 - LEONARDO ENAGE LABAJO v. CIRIACO ENRIQUEZ

    102 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-10446 January 28, 1958 - COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-10874 January 28, 1958 - RUFINO D. ANDRES v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-10702 January 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO CABARLES

    102 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-10091 January 29, 1958 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHIL. v. JULIANA V. ARAOS

    102 Phil 1080

  • G.R. No. L-11343 January 29, 1958 - CARLOS LEDESMA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-11248 January 30, 1958 - ANACLETA VILLAROMAN v. QUIRINO STA. MARIA

    102 Phil 937

  • Adm. Case No. 195 January 31, 1958 - IN RE: Attorney JESUS T. QUIAMBAO

    102 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-8252 January 31, 1958 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. NICANOR NICOLAS

    102 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-9871 January 31, 1958 - ATKINS v. B. CUA HIAN TEK

    102 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-9928 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-10022 January 31, 1958 - NORTHERN MOTORS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    102 Phil 958

  • G.R. No. L-10141 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    102 Phil 960

  • G.R. Nos. L-10236-48 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTACIO DE LUNA

    102 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. L-10370 January 31, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MATIAS H. AZNAR

    102 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-10547 January 31, 1958 - THE PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. LAURA DINIO

    102 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. L-10691 January 31, 1958 - ERLINDA STERNBERG v. GONZALO SOLOMON

    102 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-10747 January 31, 1958 - MARIANO DIAZ v. PASCUAL MACALINAO

    102 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-10902 January 31, 1958 - FLORIDA LAGMAY v. EMERENCIANA QUINIT

    102 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-11024 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO ANGELES v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GREOGORIO STA. INES

    102 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-11186 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO CABABA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    102 Phil 1013

  • G.R. No. L-11395 January 31, 1958 - SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA v. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

    102 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-11647 January 31, 1958 - FLORENTINO NAVARRO v. HON. ELOY BELLO

    102 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-12724 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    102 Phil 1025

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-10747 January 31, 1958 - MARIANO DIAZ v. PASCUAL MACALINAO<br /><br />102 Phil 999

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-10747. January 31, 1958.]

    MARIANO DIAZ and LEONCIA REYES, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PASCUAL MACALINAO, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

    Antonio M. Orarai for Appellants.

    Bartolome N. Guirao for Appellees.


    SYLLABUS


    HOMESTEAD; DETERMINATION OF RIGHT OF POSSESSION; WHEN DIRECTOR OF LANDS IS DIVESTED OF JURISDICTION. — A homesteader who has been granted entry for a homestead by the Director of Lands and thereafter deprived by another of the possession thereof, can bring an action in court for the recovery of the same. A homestead entry having been permitted by the Director of Lands the homestead is segregated from the public domain and the Director of Lands divested of the control and possession thereof except if the application is finally disapproved and the entry annulled or revoked.


    D E C I S I O N


    LABRADOR, J.:


    Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Isabela, Hon. Manuel Arranz presiding, ordering the defendants to restore to the plaintiffs the possession of the land described in the sketch, Exhibit "B", to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P2,100 as damages, and to pay the costs.

    Plaintiffs-appellees brought this action, alleging that they are absolute owners of a parcel of land situated in Barrio Aneg, Tumauini, Isabela; that said land was acquired as a homestead by Maria Diaz in the year 1939, by virtue of her H.A. No. 229763 (Entry No. 138890), approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources on November 29, 1950; that plaintiffs herein, parents of Maria Diaz, succeeded to the possession of the said homestead; that defendants illegally took possession of a portion of the said homestead, containing an area of 6 hectares and yielding an annual harvest of 480 cavans of palay valued at P7.00 per cavan. They pray that judgment be rendered ordering the defendants to deliver to them the land in question together with its annual produce since 1948 up to the termination of the case, and to pay the costs.

    The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, but the same was denied. As the defendants failed to file an answer, they were declared in default, and after presentation of the evidence for the plaintiff, judgment was rendered ordering the restoration of the land to the plaintiffs, the payment of P2,100 by the defendants to the plaintiffs, and the payment of costs. On November 18, 1953, the decision was, however, set aside on a motion for relief from judgment, because the court found that the attorney for the defendants was not furnished with copy of the order of the court denying the motion to dismiss. The order set the case for trial in the 1954 calendar.

    Subsequently, however, the defendants were again declared in default, and after a hearing of the evidence for the plaintiffs, the court again rendered a judgment identical to that which it has previously promulgated. This was on August 25, 1955. Upon notice of the judgment the defendants moved for a new trial on the ground that the lawyers who received a copy of the order for relief from judgment was not their counsel but one who was temporarily engaged by them; that the failure of the defendant’s attorney to file their answer within the time fixed by the Rules was due to excusable negligence of their counsel; that they have a good and meritorious defense because defendant Pascual Macalinao is another homestead applicant and his application conflicts with that of the late Maria Diaz, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, and that the other defendants have no interest or right over the land subject matter of the action. The court, however, denied the motion for new trial, and upon such denial and after a denial also of the motion for reconsideration of the order of denial, they appeal directly to this Court.

    The assignment of errors raised on this appeal is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. The trial court erred in not sustaining the defendants- appellants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that said court has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action or suit.

    2. The trial court erred in holding that its decision by default of August 25, 1955, has already become final and executory, and therefore could no longer be set aside and grant a new trial to the defendants-appellants.

    3. The trial court erred in not entertaining defendants- appellants’ motion for new trial so as to afford them the chance of putting up their defense of res adjudicata." (pp. 1 & 2, Brief for the Defendants-appellants.)

    In support of the first assignment of error it is argued that as the land subject matter of the action is still a part of the public domain no homestead patent or title has been issued as yet, and consequently the one that has jurisdiction over the case is the Director of Lands. The action presented is not one of ownership, although plaintiffs allege ownership and pray that the land be declared in their favor. However, the allegation of ownership in the complaint is not incompatible with the allegation that the plaintiffs have succeeded to the right of a homesteader who has been granted entry but to whom no homestead patent has yet been issued. The allegation of ownership and the prayer therefor may, therefore, be considered as a mere surplusage and this case be considered as an action for possession. The complaint alleges that the defendants entered possession in 1948. The case is, therefore, one for the determination of the right of possession, whether it is the plaintiffs or the defendants who have a right thereto. Inasmuch as the possession of the defendants has lasted for more than three years, there is no doubt that the action falls within the jurisdiction of the court of first instance and not of the justice of the peace of court.

    The contention that the Director of Lands has the jurisdiction to determine which of the rival homesteaders should be entitled to possess is without merit. A homestead entry having been permitted by the Director of Lands the homestead is segregated from the public domain and the Director of Lands divested of the control and possession thereof except if the application is finally disapproved and the entry annulled or revoked.

    There is also no merit in the second assignment of error. The record sustains the finding of the trial court that the motion for new trial was presented after the judgment had become final and executory. The first order of default was issued on June 15, 1953 and the defendants learned of the decision on September 26, 1953, and the decision was a default judgment. As a matter of fact the court set aside the first judgment of default on November 18, 1953. Since September 26, 1953, when the defendants presented their motion to set aside the judgment, they were aware that they had not presented their answer. From that day, September 26, 1953, up to the second judgment by default on August 25, 1955, the defendants had not filed their answer to all, inspite of the fact that the court had set aside its previous judgment by default to give an opportunity to the defendants to file an answer to the complaint. The reason given to the effect that another lawyer was notified of the order setting aside the judgment of the court is no excuse for delaying the presentation of an answer. The lawyer who appeared for defendants to secure the relief from the first default judgment was the lawyer who should be notified of the order of relief and the defendants were bound by the notice to such lawyer. Since the notification to their lawyer no answer had been presented by defendants and such notification took place around September 26, 1953. So that for about two years they have failed to file an answer and they cannot claim now that they have presented their motion for new trial in due time.

    The resolution of the second assignment of error renders unnecessary the consideration of the third assignment.

    Judgment is hereby affirmed, with costs against defendants- appellants.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-10747 January 31, 1958 - MARIANO DIAZ v. PASCUAL MACALINAO<br /><br />102 Phil 999


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED