Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > March 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19601 March 31, 1966 CATALINA VDA. DE ROLDAN v. MARIANO ROLDAN, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19601. March 31, 1966.]

CATALINA VDA. DE ROLDAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARIANO ROLDAN, ET AL., Defendants-Appellants.

E. V. Guevara Blancaflor, San Andres & San Andres for the defendants-appellants.

F. F. Explaga for the Plaintiff-Appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. APPEALS; APPEAL FROM INFERIOR COURTS TO COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE, NOTICE TO DEFENDANT PERSONALLY. — Section 7 of Rule 40 of the Rules of Court, which governs appeals from justice of the peace courts to courts of first instance, expressly provides that notice of the pendency of the appeal be given to the parties. This provision, being express and specific, can not be interpreted to mean that the notice can be given to the lawyer alone. The reason for this provision for notification of parties, and not of the lawyers, lies in the fact that in an appeal from an inferior court, only the complaint in the justice of the peace court is deemed reproduced, and the proceeding immediately following the filing of the complaint is the summoning of the defendant. Instead however, of being summoned, he is only personally notified because he is already within the court’s jurisdiction; the notice taking the place of the summons.

2. ID.; ID.; SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH THE CHIEF OF POLICE. — While it is true that Section 7, Rule 40 requires the notice to be sent by registered mail, and in this instance, the notices were served through the Chief of Police, however, appellants admitted that they actually received such notices through a policeman. There being no damage or injury caused to them by this mode of service, the same may be considered a substantial compliance with the Rules.


D E C I S I O N


BARRERA, J.:


From the decision of the Justice of the Peace Court of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, sustaining the complaint for forcible entry filed by Catalina Vda. de Roldan, the defendants Mariano Roldan, Et Al., through their counsel, filed and perfected their appeal to the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur (Civ. Case No. 4633). Thereafter, in connection therewith, the Clerk of the Court of First Instance caused the Chief of Police of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, to serve upon the defendants the notices of the appealed case, and in the return of such service, it appeared that defendants Mariano Roldan, Pedro Roldan, and Francisco Capistrano duly received their copies of the notice on September 5, 1959, while defendant Manuel Roldan was notified thereof on September 28, 1959.

As defendants failed to file the necessary answer, the court, at the instance of plaintiff, entered a default-order and the latter introduced evidence in the absence of said defendants. On December 12, 1959, the court, finding the plaintiff to be the owner of the property described in the complaint ordered defendants, who were in possession of the land, to vacate the same and deliver possession thereof to the plaintiff; to pay her the sum of P350.00, the value of the produce of the land which she failed to receive, and the sum of P900.00 as attorney’s fees and other incidental expenses.

A writ of execution was thereafter issued on January 18, 1960. The same, however, was returned unsatisfied with the notation of the Provincial Sheriff that he was told by defendants that "they will vacate the land only over their dead bodies." Said defendants were also found to be without any real or personal property with which to satisfy the money judgment. Later, however, or on October 27, 1960, plaintiff was placed in possession of the property in virtue of an alias writ of execution. The following day, Defendants, allegedly armed with bolos, re-entered the premises and exercised acts of possession. Consequently, plaintiff filed a motion to declare them in contempt of court. By order of November 16, 1960, said defendants were required to appear in court and explain why they should not be dealt with for contempt.

On December 3, 1960, defendants filed a "special appearance" for the purpose of questioning the jurisdiction of the court to render the decision of December 12, 1959, and to quash the service of notice of appeal upon them. It was their contention that the court did not acquire jurisdiction over their person in view of the fact that the said notices of appeal were served on them and not on their counsel who had filed and perfected the appeal from the Justice of the Peace Court to the Court of First Instance. The mode of service of said notices, through the Chief of Police of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, was also impugned as violative of the provisions of Section 7, Rule 40 of the old Rules of Court.

This motion having been denied, defendants appealed to us, claiming, mainly, that the lower court erred (1) in holding that the service of the notice of appeal upon the defendants themselves, through the Chief of Police, was valid; (2) in not quashing all the proceedings taken in the case; and (3) in not setting aside the decision for having awarded excessive damages.

Section 7, Rule 40 of the old Rules of Court, pertinent to this case, provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 7 Reproduction of complaint on appeal. — Upon the docketing of the cause under appeal, the complaint filed in the justice of the peace or municipal court shall be considered reproduced in the Court of First Instance and it shall be the duty of the clerk of court to notify the parties of that fact by registered mail, and the period for making an answer shall begin with the date of the receipt of such notice by the defendant." (Italics supplied.)

Construing the foregoing provision, this court citing another case, 1 ruled that the service of the notice of appeal on defendant personally is in order and regular. The reason therefor was given, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"But assuming, for the sake of argument, that said attorneys were, from the time they perfected defendant’s appeal, the defendant’s lawyers, Section 7 of Rule 40, which governs appeals from justice of the peace courts to Courts of First Instance, expressly provides that notice of the pendency of the appeal be given to the parties. This provision, being express and specific, can not be interpreted to mean that the notice can be given to the lawyer alone. The reason for this provision for notification of parties, and not of the lawyers, lies in the fact that in an appeal from an inferior court, only the complaint in the justice of the peace court is deemed reproduced, and the proceeding immediately following the filing of the complaint is the summoning of the defendant. Instead, however, of being summoned, he is only personally notified because he is already within the court’s jurisdiction, the notice taking place of the summons.

Defendants-appellants lay much emphasis on the fact that the aforequoted provision requires the notice to be sent by registered mail, and in this instance, they were served such notices through the Chief of Police. While this may be true, it was admitted by defendants in their memorandum of December 14, 1960, filed in the lower court, that they actually received such notices through a policeman. There being no damage or injury caused to said defendants by this mode of service, the same may be considered, in connection with this proceeding, to be in substantial compliance with the Rules. With the foregoing conclusion, it follows that the proceedings had and taken in the lower court were regular and valid.

The matter of the reasonableness of the damages and attorney’s fees awarded by the lower court can no longer be entertained in this proceeding. The same could have been the proper subject of an appeal from the decision of December 12, 1959, which has now become final and executory.

Wherefore, and for the reasons above stated the order appealed from is hereby affirmed, without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Dizon, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. Valenzuela v. Balayo, G. R. No. L-18748, March 30, 1963 citing Ortiz v. Manila G. R. No. L-5147, June 2, 1953.




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






March-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22032 March 4, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMOLO DIGORO

  • G.R. No. L-25577 March 15, 1966 ONOFRE P. GUEVARA v. RAOUL M. INOCENTES

  • G.R. No. L-20717 March 18, 1966 CONSUELO CALICDAN BAYBAYAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22756 March 18, 1966 HONDA GIKEN KOGYO KABUSHIKI KAISHA, ET AL. v. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25290 March 18, 1966 SOTERA VIRAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21332 March 18, 1966 LY GIOK HA, ET AL. v. EMILIO L. GALANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19114 March 18, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAYMUNDO DE VILLA

  • G.R. No. L-21043 March 30, 1966 APOLONIO VILLANUEVA v. SEC. OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22208 March 30, 1966 CONTINENTAL. INS. CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22415 March 30, 1966 FERNANDO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS

  • G.R. No. L-12986 March 31, 1966 SPS. BERNABE AFRICA, ET AL. v. CALTEX (PHIL.) INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17482 March 31, 1966 GENOVEVA R. JABONETE, ET AL. v. JULIANA MONTEVERDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18368 March 31, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO AGUSTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18507 March 31, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMUALDO RODRIGO

  • G.R. No. L-19601 March 31, 1966 CATALINA VDA. DE ROLDAN v. MARIANO ROLDAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20306 March 31, 1966 IN RE: JESUS NG YAO SIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20407 March 31, 1966 PASTOR GAMBOA v. DIONISIO PALLARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20635 March 31, 1966 ETEPHA, A.G. v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20801 March 31, 1966 PEPITO LAO ALFONSO, ET AL. v. MARTINIANO VIVO

  • G.R. No. L-23609 March 31, 1966 THEODORE GRANT, JR. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21546 March 31, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO. v. UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22744 March 31, 1966 LAM YIN v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-15843 March 31, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORIL SAMPANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20928 March 31, 1966 NAWASA v. SEC. OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COM.

  • G.R. No. L-21167 March 31, 1966 PRIMO GANITANO v. SEC. OF AGRI. AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21250 March 31, 1966 HONOFRE LEYSON, ET AL. v. RIZAL SURETY AND INS. CO.

  • G.R. No. L-21368 March 31, 1966 DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ET AL. v. EMILIO BENITEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21465 March 31, 1966 INDUSTRIAL-COMMERCIAL-AGRI. WORKERS’ ORG. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21519 March 31, 1966 VICTOR EUSEBIO v. SOCIEDAD AGRICOLA DE BALARIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21663 March 31, 1966 MANILA CORDAGE CO. v. FERNANDO VIBAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21731 March 31, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LIM TIAN TENG SONS & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21905 March 31, 1966 EUFRONIO J. LLANTO v. MOHAMAD ALI DIMAPORO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22308 and L-22343-4 March 31, 1966 CHIEF OF THE PHIL. CONS., ET AL. v. JUDGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22313 March 31, 1966 BARTOLOME DY POCO v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, ET AL.