Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1936 > October 1936 Decisions > G.R. No. 41697 October 30, 1936 - SEVERO JOSUE v. FAUSTO DIAZ

063 Phil 652:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 41697. October 30, 1936.]

SEVERO JOSUE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FAUSTO DIAZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Inocencio Rivas for Appellant.

Bartolome Guirao for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. JUDGMENT; ATTACK UPON AND RELIEF AGAINST; OPENING, VACATION OR ANNULMENT; GROUNDS; MERITORIOUS DEFENSE. — If the defendant has a meritorious defense, a judgment by default should be set aside when his failure to appear at the trial was not due to any negligence on his part, but to a circumstance over which he had no control.


D E C I S I O N


ABAD SANTOS, J.:


Plaintiff and appellee brought an action against the defendant and appellant in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte for the recovery of certain parcels of land and of the sum of P1,680 by way of damages. Defendant filed his answer containing a general denial and praying for the dismissal of the suit. When the case was called for trial plaintiff appeared with his counsel, but the defendant failed to appear personally, and in view thereof his counsel prayed for the postponement of the hearing. Upon objection of counsel for the opposite party, the court denied the petition and proceeded to hear the plaintiff’s evidence. Upon the evidence thus presented a judgment was rendered declaring the plaintiff to be the owner of the parcels of land described in the complaint. The decision was rendered on December 27, 1933, and on January 24, 1934, the defendant filed a motion praying that the judgment by default be set aside on the ground that his failure to appear at the trial was due to illness. With his motion there were filed a medical certificate showing that the defendant was under treatment for acute gastritis on the date that the case was called for trial, and an affidavit showing that he had a meritorious defense.

Under section 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court may relieve a party from a judgment taken against him through mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, provided that application therefore be made within a reasonable time, but in no case exceeding six months after such judgment was taken. In construing this section this court has held that where it appears that a judgment was rendered against a person through mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, and it further appears on the record that he has a meritorious defense, the judgment should be set aside with leave to answer and defend on the merit. (Bank of the Philippine Islands v. De Coster, 47 Phil., 594.)

In the case at bar, the record shows that the failure of the defendant to appear at the trial was not due to any negligence on his part, but to a circumstance over which he had no control. There is also sufficient showing that he has a meritorious defense. His motion to set aside the judgment by default should have been granted.

It results that the judgment appealed from must be set aside, and the case remanded to the court below for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Imperial, Diaz and Laurel, 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






October-1936 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 44831 October 8, 1936 - CHUA KE, ET AL. v. QUIRICO ABETO, ET AL.

    063 Phil 539

  • G.R. No. 45053 October 19, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRIACO PIRING, ET AL.

    063 Phil 546

  • G.R. No. 45137 October 20, 1936 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. NORTHERN LUZON TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    063 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 42134 October 21, 1936 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ISIDORO ABAJA, ET AL.

    063 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. L-42958 October 21, 1936 - C.N. HODGES v. CARLOTA SALAS, ET AL.

    063 Phil 567

  • G.R. No. 43304 October 21, 1936 - ANTONIO F. AQUINO v. TOMAS DEALA

    063 Phil 582

  • G.R. No. 43504 October 22, 1936 - INDALECIO DE TORRES v. VICENTE ONA

    063 Phil 594

  • G.R. No. 42539 October 23, 1936 - SULPICIO RESURRECCION v. AGUSTIN JAVIER, ET AL.

    063 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. 45100 October 26, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO DIOKNO, ET AL.

    063 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 45161 October 26, 1936 - ESTEBAN C. ESPIRITU v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, ET AL.

    063 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 45163 October 26, 1936 - ELPIDIO JAVELLANA v. LA PAZ ICE PLANT AND COLD STORAGE CO., INC.

    063 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. 44304 October 27, 1936 - LEVY HERMANOS v. SIMEON C. CAPULE

    063 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. 45332 October 27, 1936 - BRUNO AREVALO, ET AL. v. RICARDO NEPOMUCENO, ET AL.

    063 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. 42092 October 28, 1936 - FELISA CAMIA DE REYES v. JUANA REYES DE ILANO

    063 Phil 629

  • G.R. No. 45237 October 28, 1936 - MARIANO MOLO v. A.L. YATCO

    063 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. 41697 October 30, 1936 - SEVERO JOSUE v. FAUSTO DIAZ

    063 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 42338 October 30, 1936 - PEDRO LACASTE v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    063 Phil 654

  • G.R. No. 42999 October 30, 1936 - ACME FILMS v. THEATERS SUPPLY CORPORATION

    063 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. 42334 October 31, 1936 - NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CO. v. SERAFIN HIDALGO

    063 Phil 664

  • G.R. No. 43596 October 31, 1936 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. THE NATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK

    063 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. 43762 October 31, 1936 - TAN SOO HUAT v. PEDRO ONGWICO

    063 Phil 746

  • G.R. No. 44988 October 31, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CANUTO BERNAL

    063 Phil 750

  • G.R. No. 45198 October 31, 1936 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BASILIO J. DE JESUS

    063 Phil 760

  • G.R. No. 45230 October 31, 1936 - JOSE ARNEDO, ET AL. v. VICENTE ALDANESE

    063 Phil 768