G. R. No. L-10463. June 18, 1957

Certiorari to reverse  an order  issued by  the  Court of First Instance of  Misamis  Occidental,  Hon. Patricio C. Ceniza, presiding, granting relief from a judgment against respondents Pedro  Calapis and  Crispulo Calapis, in civil case No. 1373 of the said  court, entitled Feliciano V. Delgado  vs. Crispulo Calapis and Pedro  Calapis.  Ground  for certiorari is that the petition for relief from judgment was filed by respondents after  six months from  the day they were  notified  of the decision rendered against  them.

The record  shows that the action  was filed on May 20, 1951  by plaintiff to  recover possession of a parcel  of land with  damages.  Defendants  answered the complaint,  alleging as special defense that they are owners of the land subject of the action and had been occupying it as  owners peacefully,  continuously and adversely  against  the whole world from 1931.  After repeated postponements, the case was again called for hearing on February 18, 1955.  The clerk of court sent notices of the hearing  by  registered mail, but the  letters containing  the notices were returned to  the clerk of court “unclaimed,” in spite of the  fact that three registry notices  to  the addressees have been sent by the postmaster.  The hearing took  place without the presence of defendants or their counsel.  After hearing the court rendered a  decision,  declaring plaintiff  entitled to the possession of the land and ordering defendants to  vacate the same, and  to  pay the plaintiff the sum  of P1,800 as  damages, plus  P300, as attorney’s  fees,  plus costs.  Copies  of  the  judgment were  sent  by  registered mail to  each  of  the  defendants,  and  according  to  the affidavit  of the postmaster  the  letters were received by Isidoro Calapis, son of Pedro Calapis,  who signed for  the addressees (see Annex J,  Petition).
 
On January 19, 1956,  defendants filed a petition  for relief from judgment, alleging that they have  not been notified of the trial of the case, nor of the decision  rendered therein, and alleging further that they have a good  and  meritorious defense.  Motion  was supported by  affidavits and executed by both defendants.  This motion  was heard at a time when a motion to  declare defendants  for contempt was  being heard and jointly with said motion for contempt.   Both parties were heard in argument, after which the court rendered the order  appealed from, setting aside the judgment.   A  motion for reconsideration  was presented by the plaintiff, but same was denied. The pivotal fact upon which  the  resolution of the petition depends is the validity of the  service of the decision made upon the  defendants.  According to the record,  copies of the decision were sent by  registered mail  to  the defendants, in  this manner.

“To Whom It May  Concern:
 
This is  to certify  that  according to our records, this Office  has received, for transmission  to the respective addressees, the following registered letters,  to wit:
 
1. Registered letter No. 2174, addressed to Mr.  Crispulo Calapis, Mabini, Baliangao, Misamls Occidental, and sent by the Office of the Clerk of Court, Oroquieta, Misamis Occ.;

2. Registered letter No. 217S,  addressed  to  Mr. Pedro  Calapis, Mabini, Baliangao, MIsamis Occidental, and sent by the Office of  the  Clerk  of Court,  Oroquieta,  Misamis  Occ.

It is  certified further, that according to our records, said letters were received by the addressees on March 28, 1955, through Isidoro Calapis, son of Pedro Calapis, who signed for  the addressees.

This  certificate  is issued  after  proper permission  was granted by  the  Director  of Posts  in connection with  Civil Case No. 1373, Court of First Instance of this province,  entitled ‘Feliciano V. Delgado vs. Crispulo Calapis, et al.,” and through the written  request of the sender, the Clerk of  Court.

(Sgd.)  Buenaventura Arcede

Postmaster

Under section  7 of Rule 27, judgments must be served personally or  by registered  mail.  Proof  of  service  by registered  mail  is made in the following manner:

“Sec.  10. Proof of service.—Proof of personal service shall consist of a written admission of the  party served, or the affidavit of the party serving, containing  a  full  statement  of  the date, place and manner  of the service.  If the service is by mail, proof thereof shall consist  of an  affidavit of the person  mailing, together with  the registry receipt issued  by the  mailing office if the  letter has been registered.  The registry return card shall be filed immediately upon receipt thereof by the sender, or in  lieu thereof the letter unclaimed together with the certified  or sworn  copy of the notice given by  the postmaster to  addressee,”  (Rule 27.)

Tested by  the  above-quoted provision,  We find  that the service of the judgment rendered in the  case suffers from two defects, namely, there is  no affidavit of the clerk  of court, the person mailing,  and there is no registry return card, or a certified  or sworn copy of the notice given by the postmaster  to the addressee.   It also appears that the delivery of the letter (containing the decision) to  Isidoro Calapis was not made in accordance with the practice followed by the Bureau of Posts  in such  cases.   The practice is for the notice of the registered letter to be sent or given to  the  addressee,  and  for  the  addressee, in case  he does not receive the  registered  letter himself, to authorize,  in writing upon the notice received, the postmaster to  deliver the  letter to another  person  designated  therein.   It does not appear that this practice  was followed; it does not appear that the original  notice was  received  by the addressees,  or that they had  authorized Isidoro Calapis to receive the letters containing the decision for them.

While there may be a presumption  that Isidoro Calapis, in the ordinary course of  events,  delivered the  letters containing the decision to the addressees, the fact of receipt by them is denied by defendants in their  answer.  From the  order  of the court setting  aside the judgment,  which found the petition for relief well-founded, we gather that the  judge was impressed and convinced  by  defendants’ claim that they did not receive  copies of the decision from Isidoro Calapis, for  which  reason he granted the relief prayed for.  There being no reason for changing this “finding, we conclude that the  defendants had  not  Actually received copies of the decision of the court.

Two other  important issues  remain to  be  determined, which are, was the motion  for relief filed within six months from entry of judgment as provided in Section 3 of Rule 38, and presented  within sixty days from notice of such judgment?  The decision was  rendered on February 18, 1955 and the court ordered  service  of the decision  on the defendants  by registered mail.   The decision was  actually sent by registered mail to defendants on March 18, 1955 but as pointed out above service was not made in  accordance with the  Rules.  There appears nothing in the record to show when the judgment was actually entered.  In accordance with section 2 of Rule 35,  entry is made by  the clerk (by notation  in the book  of entries of judgments) if  no appeal or motion for new trial  is filed within  the time provided  (30  days).  While, as petitioner contends, more than nine months elapsed  between  the  sending  of  the notice of the decision on March 18, 1955 and the  filing of the  petition for relief, there is  no positive  evidence  or assurance  that the entry  was  made  by  the clerk in the ordinary  course of business,  especially in view  of the fact that the court granted the motion for relief.

As to the date when defendants actually learned of the decision,  the record discloses  that on  January  10,  1956 plaintiff presented a motion to declare the  defendants in contempt of court  (Annex VII  to Answer).  When this motion was called for hearing1 on January 19, 1956, defendants’ counsel, upon being informed of the existence of the decision,  immediately  presented  the petition  for relief. These facts are not denied.  It appears, therefore, that the petition for relief was  presented on the very day  (January 19,  1956)  the defendants learned  of the existence of the decision,  basis of the  petition for contempt.

Under the circumstances, the Court hereby remands the case to the court below with instructions to grant  the relief and reinstate  the case for trial, if no entry of judgment was made,  or to deny the petition for relief if  entry of judgment  had been made six  months or  more  before January 19, 1956, the date  when the petition for  relief was filed.

Without costs.

Bengzon,  Padilla,  Montemayor, Reyes,  A.,  Bautista Angelo, Conception, Reyes, J. B. L., Endeneia, and Felix, JJ., concur.