DIRECTOR OF LANDS, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. NEMESIO ACANA, ET AL., CLAIMANTS, HEIRS OF JUAN GONZALES, CLAIMANTS AND APPELLANTS, HILARION CASTIGADOR, CLAIMANT AND APPELLEE.

Appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo denying appellant’s motion to set aside the order of default.

Cadastral
proceedings were opened for the Municipality of Lambunao, Iloilo, in
the Court of First Instance of Iloilo and on January 18, 1962, said
court, through Judge Nañawa, issued an order of general default. On
March 21, 1962, herein claimants heirs of Juan Gonzales, through
Conrada Gonzales Lira, filed a motion to lift the order of default with
respect to Lot No. 3170, to wit:

“1. That the said claimant Conrada G. Lira is representing herein the heirs of Juan Gonzales in Lot No. 3170, Lambunao Cadastre.

“2.That the heirs of Juan Gonzales are the only claimants on record in the Bureau of Lands to the above-mentioned Lot No. 3170.

“3. That said lot is uncontested, the heirs of Juan Gonzales being the only claimants on record.

“4.
That not any of the heirs of Juan Gonzales has received any sketch card
form the government surveyor regarding said Lot No. 3170.

“5.
That said claimant Conrada G. Lira has not filed any answer because she
has no card and she believed in good faith that the land covered by
said Lot NO. 3170 included among the sketch cards which she received
and filed.

“6. That said Lot No. 3170 has been in actual
physical possession of the heirs of Juan Gonzales and their
predecessors form time immemorial.

“WHEREFORE, forgoing
premises considered, it is hereby prayed that this Honorable Court
order the lifting of the default order in the instant case as regards
Lot No. 3170.”

On March 27, 1962, the
trial court, through Justice of the Peace Felipe L. Vacante of Lambunao
(designated to hear cadastral cases) rendered a decision adjudicating
Lot No. 3170 to Hilarion Castigador married to Jesusa Losañes.

On April 6, 1962, the trial court issued an order denying the motion of
claimant Lira to lift the order of default, of this tenor:

“On
March 30, 1962, claimant Conrada G. Lira filed a motion praying for the
lifting of the previous order of general default, stating further that
there are no other claimants on record.

“Records show that
this lot was heard on March 12, 1962 and a decision thereto rendered on
March 27, 1962 in favor of the only claimant Hilarion Castigador.

“Considering
the status of the case at this juncture, a motion to lift order of
default unaccompanied by other proper remedies, may land nowhere.

“In view of the foregoing, this Court cannot give due course to the
aforesaid motion, without prejudice to the proper remedy or remedies
available in the premises.”

On April 11,
1962, the herein claimants Heirs of Juan Gonzales filed a motion to set
aside the decision of March 27, 1962, attaching thereto an affidavit of
merit.

On May 28, 1962, the trial court denied said motion in an order which reads:

“This
Court finds no basis to set aside its judgment dated March 27, 1962,
the default order dated January 18, 1962 having not been lifted.

“In view hereof, the motion to set aside the judgment dated April 11, 1962 is denied.”

Hence, this appeal.

Appellants
claim that the trial court erred in not setting aside the order of and
judgment by default and in not granting a new trial.

The
claim is meritorious. It is not disputed that after the trial court had
issued a general order of default on January 18, 1962, herein
appellants on March 21, 1962 filed a motion to lift said order of
default. In spite, however, of said motion, the court on March 27, 1962
rendered judgment adjudicating the lot in question (Lot No. 3170) to
Castigador. Again, on April 11, 1962, appellants filed a motion to set
aside said decision, attaching thereto an affidavit of merit, stating
the reasons relied upon for the reopening of the case. Despite said
motion, the court denied it.

Note that the motion (dated
April 11, 1962) to set aside the judgment of March 27, 1962 alleges not
only excusable negligence or mistake on appellants’ part, namely, that
they failed to file their answer over Lot No. 3170 because they did not
receive a sketch card form the government surveyor who surveyed the
lot, but is accompanied by an affidavit of merit alleging with
particularly said excusable neglect. Furthermore, appellants also
interposed a meritorious defense or claim not only in said motion, but
also in the affidavit of merit, stating:

“2.
That in spite of the fact that during the survey, the said lot is
listed a claimed by the heirs of Juan Gonzales and so listed also in
the cadastral plan and in the numerical and alphabetical list of
claimants in the Bureau of Lands, yet neither I nor any of my co-heirs
Jose, Preciosa, Aurora, Clerina, Loreto, Purificacion and Elvira were
given personal notice of the hearing of this lot, for which reason, we
were not able to file an answer to the same in due time which at most
constitute excusable negligence or mistake.

“3. That we
have a meritorious claim over said lot as in fact the same is actually
possessed by us and we have been in possession of the same together
with our predecessor, Juan Gonzales for more than thirty (30) years
which possession of the same together with our paying the land taxes
thereof, declaring it in the name of our predecessor, Juan Gonzales and
getting the products therefrom for said period.”

The
court below should have, therefore, granted new trial of the case, it
appearing that the provisions of sections 1 and 2, Rule 37 of the Rules
of Court were duly complied with. For refusing to reopen the case, the
trial court gravely abused its discretion.

WHEREFORE, the orders complained of are hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. No costs.

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