Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > May 1963 Decisions > G.R. No. L-18884 May 29, 1963 - J. M. TUAZON & Co., INC. v. DANNY VIVAT:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-18884. May 29, 1963.]

J. M. TUAZON & Co., INC., represented by its Managing Partner, the Gregorio Areneta, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DANNY VIVAT, Defendant-Appellant.

Araneta & Araneta for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Manuel B. Ruiz, for Defendant-Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. PETITION FOR RELIEF; DENIAL OF PETITION FOR LACK OF MERITORIOUS DEFENSE AND FOR FAILURE TO ACT WITH DUE DILIGENCE. — A petition for relief from judgment should be denied if it is shown that the petitioner has no meritorious defense, and that his failure to discover on time that he was declared in default was due to his lack of diligence in ascertaining certain facts and in taking the necessary steps to protect his rights.

2. TORRENS SYSTEM; CONTROVERSY OVER OWNERSHIP OF LAND CONCLUDED BY TORRENS TITLE; TITLE OVER REGISTERED LAND NOT ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION. — A Torrens title concludes all controversy over ownership of the land covered by the final decree of registration, and title by adverse possession cannot be acquired against the registered owner (Act 496, section 46).


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Appeal from an order denying a petition for relief from judgment.

On January 7, 1959, a plenary action (publiciana) for ejectment and collection of rentals was filed by plaintiff J. M. Tuazon & Co., in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against appellant Vibat on the basis of plaintiff’s registered title to a parcel of land known as the Santa Mesa Heights Subdivision situated at Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 1267 (37686-Rizal).

The complaint avers that on or about June, 1950 the defendant, without and against plaintiff’s consent, through force, strategy, and stealth, unlawfully entered into the possession of a portion of 500 square meters, more or less, within said parcel of land of the plaintiff situated at Bo. North Tatalon, Quezon City, and constructed his house thereon; and that as a consequence of the acts of usurpation committed by the defendant the plaintiff suffered damages at the rate of P150 monthly representing the fair rental value of its premises, and prayed that defendant be adjudged to be without any valid right of possession and title in plaintiff’s premises; that defendant and all person claiming under him be ordered to vacate the same and remove his house and other construction thereon, and to pay P150 a month from the date of usurpation until restoration of possession, with costs.

Summons appears served on April 13, 1959 upon the defendant, through one Candido Calon.

The Court of First Instance of Rizal, on May 16, 1959, declared defendant in default for failure to file any responsive pleading within the reglementary period, and as a consequence, plaintiff was allowed to present his evidence in support of the complaint. Thereafter, upon presentation of plaintiff’s evidence, finding the allegations of the complaint sufficiently established, the court rendered judgment, on June 3, 1959, in favor of plaintiff.

On June 23,1959, defendant (now appellant) filed a petition for relief from his judgment of the trial court, alleging that his failure to file a responsive pleading was due to no fault, or negligence of his; that Candido Calon, the person who, according to the Sheriff’s return, received the copy of the summons and a copy of the complaint, was not, and never has been, residing at 39 B.M.A. Avenue, Tatalon, Quezon City, herein defendant’s residence; that Calon was only a visitor who happened to be in the yard of his residence when the Deputy Sheriff persuaded him to receive said summons; that defendant Danny Vibat and his family were in Calamba, Laguna. on April 13, 1959 that it was only several days after their arrival on May 10, 1959 that Calon delivered to him the copy of the summons with a copy of the complaint; that it was only on June 5, 1959 that he learned that he was declared in default; and that he has good and valid defenses to the plaintiff’s complaint it given a chance to be heard. Sworn affidavits of the defendant and Calon were attached to this petition, which prayed that the order of default be set aside, and that defendant be allowed to file a responsive pleading to the complaint.

Plaintiff, opposing this pleading, alleged that defendant’s petition is not sufficient in form to justify the issuance of an order requiring to answer because he relied only upon an alleged purchase of the property in question from one E. Alquiros as his defense, whereas plaintiff is indubitably the registered owner of the property in question of virtue of a Torrens title issued in its name; that even assuming the truth of defendant’s allegation that he purchased the property in question from E. Alquiros, such fact could not offset plaintiff’s right to recover possession of the property as it is the registered and indefeasible owner thereof, and that the affidavits executed by defendant and Calon are purely self-serving, and should not be countenanced by this Court; and prayed for the summary dismissal of the petition.

On the date requested by defendant-petitioner for hearing, the court dictated an order in open court denying the petition, ‘’for the same has failed to comply with mandatory requirements laid down by the provision of Rule 38 of the Rules of Court of Appeals, which certified the case to this court on the ground that only question of law are involved.

We find no error in the denial on the petition for relief, because the record shows that appellant did not act with due diligence, and that he has no meritorious defense.

Even granting that Candido Calon was not qualified to accept service of summons, the fact is admitted by him and by the appellant (in their affidavits in support of the motion for relief) that Calon did turn over the summons to this appellant only "several days" after May 10, 1959. Had appellant Vibat acted with due diligence, and made prompt inquiries, he would have discovered that he had been declared in default on May 16, 1959, and could have asked for its lifting well before the rendition of the judgment of the merits on June 3, 1959.

As to the alleged defense that appellant Vibat had bought the land occupied by him from Eustaquio Alquiros, who, in turn, purchased it from Juliana (Juana) de la Cruz, the same plainly can not hold against the Torrens title admittedly issued in favor of plaintiff J. M. Tuazon & Co., Inc., since the Torrens title concludes all controversy over ownership of the land covered by the final decree of registration, nor can title by adverse possession be acquired against the registered owner (Act 496, section 46). Appellant’s remedy, if any, would only lie against his immediate vendor, on the latter’s warranty against eviction.

WHEREFORE, the denial of the petition for relief is hereby affirmed, with costs against appellant Danny Vibat.

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.

Labrador, J., did not take part.




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






May-1963 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20508 May 16, 1963 - GENARO VISARRA v. CESAR MIRAFLOR

  • G.R. No. L-17832-33 May 29, 1963 - ALFONSO CABABA v. BALBINO REMIGIO, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18884 May 29, 1963 - J. M. TUAZON & Co., INC. v. DANNY VIVAT

  • G.R. No. L-14791 May 30, 1963 - IPEKDJIAN MERCHANDISING CO., INC. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-16419 May 30, 1963 - ELIZALDE ROPE FACTORY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-16727 May 30, 1963 - J. M. TUASON & CO. v. RICARDO BALOY

  • G.R. No. L-16774 May 30, 1963 - EUGENIO URBAYAN v. EVARISTO SALVORO

  • G.R. No. L-16782 May 30, 1963 - SILVESTRE CUÑADO v. DAVID GAMUS

  • G.R. No. L-17060 May 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. KUSAIN SAIK, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17568 May 30, 1963 - EMILIO M. LUMONTAD, JR. v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR

  • G.R. No. L-17662 May 30, 1963 - SAN TEODORO DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES, INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-17907 May 30, 1963 - JOAQUIN HACBANG v. THE LEYTE AUTOBUS CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-17983 May 30, 1963 - LEONCIO SOLEDAD v. PAULO MAMAÑGUN

  • G.R. No. L-18226 May 30, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO SANTOK

  • G.R. No. L-18354 May 30, 1963 - CHING BAN YEK CO., INC. v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-20420 May 30, 1963 - BOTELHO SHIPPING CORP. v. JOSE N. LEUTERIO

  • G.R. No. L-11843 May 31, 1963 - DAVAO CITY WOMEN’S CLUB, INC. v. REMEDIOS PONFERRADA

  • G.R. No. L-14760 May 31, 1963 - ANTONIO M. SAMIA v. ROMAN REYES

  • G.R. No. L-15184 May 31, 1963 - SAURA IMPORT & EXPORT CO., INC. v. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15201-02 May 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POLICARPIO TIONGSON

  • G.R. No. L-15237 May 31, 1963 - MARIA SANTIAGO, ET AL., v. JOSE RAMIREZ, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-15290 May 31, 1963 - MARIANO ZAMORA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-15972 May 31, 1963 - CONCEPCION ASETRE MOTOOMULL v. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA

  • G.R. No. L-15982 May 31, 1963 - MARINDUQUE IRON MINES AGENTS, INC. v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-16610 May 31, 1963 - FRANCISCA JOVELO v. NAZARIA VDA. DE BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-16870 May 31, 1963 - ELOY PROSPERO v. ALFREDO ROBLES, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16894 May 31, 1963 - MODESTA VDA. DE SANTOS v. DANIEL GARCIA

  • G.R. No. L-17569 May 31, 1963 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL SAMIA, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17912 May 31, 1963 - MELANIO OLANO v. DOMINADOR RONQUILLO, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18043 May 31, 1963 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. GREGORIO D. MONTEJO

  • G.R. Nos. L-18083-84 May 31, 1963 - JESUS Z. VALENZUELA v. IRENE Z. DE AGUILAR

  • G.R. No. L-18085 May 31, 1963 - ANACLETO B. ALZATE v. BENIGNO ALDANA

  • G.R. No. L-18125 May 31, 1963 - BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, PROVINCE OF LAGUNA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-18270 May 31, 1963 - SAN PABLO OIL FACTORY, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-18319 May 31, 1963 - LEONCIO NGO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18336 May 31, 1963 - MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC. v. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA MAGDALENA ESTATE, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-18365 May 31, 1963 - GEORGE DE BISSCHOP v. EMILIO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-18629 May 31, 1963 - NEGROS NAVIGATION CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18728 May 31, 1963 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-18943 May 31, 1963 - RAMON YAP v. FORTUNATA TINGIN, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-19146 May 31, 1963 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO SARMIENTO

  • G.R. No. L-19247 May 31, 1963 - INSULAR SUGAR REFINING CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19258 May 31, 1963 - MANILA YACHT CLUB, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-21098 May 31, 1963 - CARMEN P. NOVINO v. COURT OF APPEALS