G.R. No. L-48190. August 31, 1987
LUISA BRILLANTE
PARAS, J.:
Before Us is a petition praying for the reversal of the decision[2]
rendered in Civil Case No. 5643 of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Albay which was a case for the annulment of judgment[3]
with writ of injunction in Civil Case No. 5013 for the Quieting of Title, Ejectment and Damages filed by private respondents against
petitioners herein. The CFI decision in
Case No. 5013 in the dispositive portion reads:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs[4]
and against the defendants[5]
as follows:
“1. Declaring the
plaintiffs to be the legitimate and lawful owners and possessors of the
property described in paragraph 2 of the complaint and at the same time
nullifying the claim of ownership of the defendants over the said property;
“2. Ordering the
defendants to vacate the premises in question;
“3. Ordering the
defendants to jointly and severally indemnify the plaintiffs damages and
expenses of litigation and for attorney’s fees in proven sum of 11,000.00 and
“4. To pay the costs of
this suit.
“SO ORDERED.” (p. 25, Rollo)
The trial court in Civil Case No. 5013 based its decision upon
consideration of the following findings of fact:
“Counsel for the plaintiffs presented plaintiff Andres Arboleda as his sole witness who testified to the following:
“That he and his wife are the absolute owners and possessors of Lot
No. 3720-C, which is a portion of Lot No. 3720 of the Cadastral Survey of Guinobatan, evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No.
19916 (Exhibit “A”); that said parcel of land was originally owned
and possessed by the spouses Cecilio Arboleda and Hilaria Brillante, and after their death, Andres and Cirilo Arboleda being the only
heirs took possession of the land. In
1959, Andres Arboleda bought the rights, interests
and participation of his brother, Cirilo over the
property for the sum of P300.00.
However, it was only in 1964 when they actually executed the deed of
extra-judicial partition and sale (Exhibit “B” and “B-1”). From 1959, plaintiffs had been in actual and
peaceful possession of the entire Lot No. 3720-C. He had also paid the land taxes therefor (Exhibits “C”,”C-1″ to
‘C-4″). At the same time, he caused
the property to be declared in his name (Exhibit “C?5)”
“During the lifetime of Hilaria Brillante, mother of
the plaintiff Andres Arboleda, she allowed her
sister,Pamfila Brillante to
construct a house on the land in question.
Later on, when the daughter of Pamfila Brillante, defendant Luisa Ocampo,
had a family of her own, she also constructed a house on the land in question
without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. The other defendants, Catalino
Ocampo and Roberto Ocampo
who are also the children of Luisa Ocampo constructed
their houses on the land in question, also without the knowledge and consent of
the plaintiffs. In like manner,
defendant Alejandro Brillante, a son of a brother of Hilaria Brillante, constructed
his house on the land of the plaintiffs without their knowledge and
consent. For humanitarian
considerations and because of the closeness of their blood relationship, the
plaintiffs tolerated the stay of the defendants on the premises. But in 1966, the defendants began destroying
the improvements on the land, like the barbed wire fence and had harvested the
produce therefrom and asserted ownership over the
same. To protect their interest, the
plaintiffs brought the matter to the attention of the administrative
authorities of Guinobatan and the PC, and exhausted
all avenues for an amicable settlement with the defendants, but the latter completely
ignored and disregarded all attempts to settle the case. The plaintiffs then went to Atty. Rodrigo Reantaso for advice.
Atty. Reantaso wrote the defendants to vacate
the premises (Exhibits ‘D’, ‘D-1″ to “D-3′, inclusive), which were all
sent by registered mail (Exhibits “D-4’ to ‘D-7’, inclusive). Again, the defendants ignored the request of
Atty. Reantaso.
“Because of the unwarranted acts of the, defedants,
the plaintiffs had spent more than P1,000.00 for litigation expenses plus the
sum of P600.00 which he paid his lawyer.
“The defendants in their answer aver that Pamfila
Brillante, mother of defendants Roberto, Catalino and Luisa, all surnamed Ocampo,
is the co-heir of Hilaria Brillante
and that the plaintiffs had fraudulently secured the title of the land to the
exclusion of the defendants who are co-heirs of the property. The defendants however failed to include or
attach in their answer any documents to support their claim. Furthermore, if the defendants really did
have some documents to support their claim of being co-heirs to the property,
during the time that the plaintiffs were asking for an amicable settlement when
they were called by the administrative authorities, namely, the PC, the Station
Commander of the Guinobatan Police Station and the
Municipal Mayor of Guinobatan, they should have
presented the same, to end once and for all their dispute being blood
relatives. Again, when Atty. Reantaso wrote them, the defendants did not inform him that
they are co-heirs to the property and therefore cannot be ejected from the premmises. But
defendants just completely ignored and disregarded the invitation to settle,
thus prompting the belief that they have no document on which to support their
claim of being co-heirs to the property in question.
“In view of the foregoing, the Court has no other alternative since
the evidence on hand points to the legitimacy and lawful ownership of the
property in question described under paragraph 2 of the complaint to the
plaintiffs, except to declare the plaintiffs rightful owners of the same.” (pp.
23-25, Rollo)
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration was denied and
consequently upon motion of plaintiffs, a writ of execution was issued ordering
defendants to vacate the premises.
Thereafter, defendants, thru their lawyer, Atty. Antonio delos Reyes, filed a petition for relief from judgment
reiterating substantially the same ground relied upon in their motion for
reconsideration. Finding the petition to
be merely a rehash of the previous motion for reconsideration and that the same
was filed beyond the reglementary period, the court
denied said petition.
On June 23, 1977,
defendants in Civil Case No. 5013 instituted Civil Case No. 5643 for the
annulment of the judgment in Civil Case No. 5013 trying to establish the fact
that spouses Andres and Ester Arboleda, as well as Cirilo Arboleda were not the only
heirs of the property in question. Said
complaint reiterated the same grounds previously
pleaded in their motion for reconsideration and petition for relief in Civil
Case No. 5013.
On July 14,
1977, spouses Andres
and Ester Arboleda, instead of filing an answer,
filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 5643 on the ground that the trial
court had jurisdiction and on the further ground of res
judicata.
In its order, dated July 29,
1977, the CFI
dismissed Civil Case No. 5643. On August 8,
1977, the
petitioners moved to reconsider the dismissal but the motion was denied,
hence, this petition on the following grounds:
“I. The order of default against defendants[6]
in Civil Case No. 5013 was without legal and procedural basis.
“II. The order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 5643
was without sufficient procedural and legal basis.
“1.
Plaintiffs-petitioners have a valid and substantial cause of action.
“2.
Plaintiffs-petitioners were denied “due process” of law. (Petitioners’ Memorandum, p. 71, Rollo)
Petitioners’ contentions
are untenable.
The record shows that the
trial court in Civil Case No. 5013 had set the pre-trial on October
22, 1974. This date was reset to December
11, 1974, upon
motion of defendants (petitioners herein) since they had not yet been able to
engage the services of a lawyer. Again
the pre-trial was reset to June 23, 1976 for the reason that on December
11, 1974, there was
then no Judge present to preside over the case.
On June 23, 1976, defendants moved for postponement
thus resulting in the resetting of the pre-trial to September 3, 1976.
When this case was called for pre-trial on September 3, 1976 only the
plaintiffs (private respondents herein) and their counsel appeared
notwithstanding the fact that all the defendants received due notice as
evidenced by the registered return cards signed by them. On motion of counsel for the plaintiffs, the
defendants were declared in default and thus plaintiffs were allowed to
present evidence ex-parte before the court on September 10, 1976 at 2:30 o’clock in the afternoon. On the basis of evidence presented in said
hearing, the trial court rendered a decision dated October 5, 1976.
Petitioners now argue that they were denied due process, and that
consequently the judgment in Civil Case No. 5013 must be rendered null and
void. Such argument merits no
consideration in the light of the foregoing paragraph.
The judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 5013 is indeed founded
upon the evidence adduced by the private respondents. The fact that the trial court in said case proceeded to hear evidence ex-parte can only be attributed to petitioners’
fault. Thus in the order, dated January
10, 1977 of the trial court in Civil Case No. 5013 denying the motion for
reconsideration, said court declares that:
“Submitted for resolution is the motion for reconsideration filed
by defendant Luisa Ocampo herself and the opposition
thereto by counsel for the plaintiffs.
The motion for reconsideration is to the effect that the decision in
this case was premised on the ground that the defendants, despite due notice,
did not appear during the pre-trial on September 3, 1976, at 8:30 in the
morning; that the defendants on September 3, 1976 at 8:30 in the morning
really appeared in Branch I of this Court up to 11:00 o’clock in the morning,
when one of the clerks in Branch I called their attention that the pre-trial
of this case will be in the sala of Branch III; that without
delay, the defendants proceeded to Branch III, but Branch III had adjourned;
and that in justice, to the herein defendants, they be given a chance to be
heard.
“It is very unfortunate indeed that the defendants did not
secure the services of counsel in filing their answer and during the scheduled
pre-trial of this case. It is likewise
unfortunate that they did not seek the services of counsel in filing the
instant motion for reconsideration in order that they could be well informed of
the requirements of the law.
“Be that as it may, the ground relied upon by the defendants,
even without touching on the technicalities imposed by the Rules, cannot merit
any consideration. First, the decision
was not based on the ground that the defendants did not appear during the
pre-trial. The decision in this case
was rendered after a proper hearing before the Presiding Judge of this Court,
with the plaintiffs presenting oral and documentary evidence to support their
action. Second, the Court cannot believe
that any employee of this Court will misled the defendants by directing them
to proceed to Branch III. Inasmuch as
the defendant themselves have prepared the answer as well as the motion for reconsideration,
it is safe to assume that the defendants are intelligent enough to know that
this case pertains to Branch I of this Court and not Branch III. As a matter of fact, in their motion for
reconsideration, they captioned the same as pertaining to Branch I.
“In the light of the foregoing discussions, and considering
that the motion for reconsideration and for new trial does not comply with the
requirements of the Rules of Court, the instant motion is DENIED.
“SO ORDERED.” (pp. 55-56, Rollo)
It is undisputed that the trial court was liberal in granting several
postponements of the pre-trial conferences before it was prompted to declare
petitioners in during the hearing on September
10, 1976. As earlier stated,
petitioners were duly notified of every proceeding by the court. Having been properly notified, it is up to
them to choose whether or not to put up their defense. Certainly, due process was never denied the
petitioners.
There exists compelling reasons which justify the dismissal of
Civil Case No. 5643, to wit:
1) The allegations in
petitioners’ complaint in Civil Case No. 5643 do not warrant the setting aside
of the aforesaid decision for want of any showing that the respondents had
committed extrinsic fraud upon the petitioners, or that the court in Civil Case
No. 5013 had no jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties, or that the
decision in the same case is patently void on its face.
2) All the elements of res judicata are present.
The finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 5013 is not to be
ignored as this is an important aspect of the case that bars any further
inquiry into the merits of the same. The
petitioners could have properly disputed the decision by means of a timely
appeal or by means of a petition for certiorari within a reasonable
period, but they did not, thereby making the decision a settled issue as
between the petitioners and the respondents.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit. This
decision is immediately executory, and there will be
no extension of the period within which to file a motion for reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.
Yap, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera,
Padilla, and Sarmiento,
JJ., concur.
[1]
Pleadings and the decision of the court a quo referred to petitioners as “Brillante” only and not “Brillantes”
as used in their Petition for Review on Certiorari.
[2]
Penned by Judge Romulo P. Untalan.
[3]
Written by Judge Arsenio Solidum.
[4]
private respondents herein
[5]
petitioners herein
[6]
Petitioners herein