LEONA CORPUS AND ILADIA CORPUS, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. JACINTA CORPUS AND PEDRO ADUCA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

On 11 May 1965, Leona Corpus and Iladia Corpus, claiming to be the legal
heirs of the late spouses Domingo Corpus and Clara Sibayan, filed an action
against the spouses Jacinta Corpus and Pedro Aduca, in the then Court of First
Instance of Pangasinan, for the recovery of possession, with damages, of a
parcel of land, with an area of 2,153 square meters, situated in Barrio
Pinmaludpud, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and registered in the name of “Heirs of
Domingo Corpus” under TCT No 49663 of the Register of Deeds of
Pangasinan.

The plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the described
property belonged to the spouses Domingo Corpus and Clara Sibayan, both of whom
were already dead, the first having died in 1948 and the second in 1911; that
the said spouses left two (2) children, namely:  Leona Corpus, one of the
plaintiffs herein, and Alberto Corpus who died in 1936 leaving as sole heir, his
daughter Iladia Corpus, the other plaintiff herein; that during his lifetime,
but after the death of Clara Sibayan, Domingo Corpus lived with one Fermina
Tabas without benefit of marriage because she was then a married woman and he
begot a daughter, Jacinta Corpus, one of the defendants herein; that on 13 May,
1964, Pedro Aduca, husband of Jacinta Corpus, purporting to represent the heirs
of Domingo Corpus, prevailed upon one Doroteo Cresencia in whose name the
property in question was erroneously registered under OCT No. 35511, to execute,
as he did execute, a document denominated:  “Deed of Reconveyance and
Confirmation” whereby he (Doroteo Cresencia) reconveyed the property in question
to the heirs of Domingo Corpus; that by virtue of said document, the defendant
spouses took possession of the land and procured the issuance of TCT No. 49663
in the name of “Heirs of Domingo Corpus, represented by Pedro Aduca, his
son-in-law, of legal age, Filipino, married to Jacinta Corpus and a resident of
Lupao, Nueva Ecija, Philippines.”^[1]

Plaintiffs further alleged in their
complaint that defendant Jacinta Corpus, not having any right to inherit from
the late Domingo Corpus, is under obligation to deliver the possession of said
land to the plaintiffs; that the plaintiffs have, on several occasions, demanded
from the defendants the delivery of the possession of said parcel of land, as
well as the owner’s copy of TCT No. 49663 so that the same could be cancelled
and transferred in the names of plaintiffs but the defendants, for no
justifiable cause or valid reason, refused and still refuse to do so and instead
claimed absolute and exclusive ownership over the land; and that before the
filing of the suit, serious and earnest efforts were exerted by the plaintiffs
to settle the case amicably with the defendants, but the same were of no avail
so that the plaintiffs were constrained to go to court to protect their rights
and incurred damages as a result thereof.^[2]

Answering, the defendants denied
that the property in question belonged to the late spouses Domingo Corpus and
Clara Sibayan, claiming that they purchased the said property from Doroteo
Cresencia by virtue of the document entitled:  “Deed of Reconveyance and
Confirmation” executed in their favor on 13 May 1964; and that, while the
vendees mentioned in said document, are the heirs of Domingo Corpus, the
defendants, who are also heirs of Domingo Corpus, are the intended vendees. 
Wherefore, they prayed that the complaint be dismissed and the plaintiffs
ordered to pay them damages and attorney’s fees.^[3]

After several postponements at the
behest of both parties, the trial court, in an Order, dated 3 August 1967, set
the pre-trial conference on 28 August 1967.^[4] On 15 August 1967, however, counsel for
the defendants filed a motion for the postponement of the pre-trial conference
set for 28 August 1967 claiming that he had to appear before the Court of First
Instance of Nueva Ecija on the same date in connection with Civil Case No.
SD-206 of said court.  A copy of the Order issued in Civil Case No. SD-206 of
the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija was appended to the motion.^[5]

When the motion for postponement
was heard on 28 August 1967, counsel for the plaintiffs interposed vigorous
opposition thereto, claiming that he was not furnished with a copy of said
motion for postponement.  The trial court, after finding that the case had been
pending for a long time and that several postponements had already been granted
the parties, and that the defendants’ motion for postponement was not filed in
accordance with the Rules of Court as to notice to the opposing party, denied
the motion for postponement and allowed the plaintiffs to present their evidence
ex-parte before the clerk of court who was commissioned to receive the
same.^[6]

A copy of the trial
court’s Order dated 28 August 1967 denying defendants’ motion for postponement
and allowing the plaintiffs to adduce evidence ex-parte was received by
defendants on 12 September 1967.^[7]
Defendants took no step to have said Order reconsidered and set aside.

On
1 April 1968, the trial court rendered a decision, the dispositive part of which
reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, considering that the allegations in the complaint had been
satisfactorily established and proven, and finding the claim of the plaintiffs
to be meritorious, the court, hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiffs
and against the defendants as follows:

(a)  Declaring the plaintiffs the
legal heirs of the deceased spouses Domingo Corpus and Clara Sibayan, and,
therefore, the exclusive and lawful owners of the herein controverted property
registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 49663 of the Office of the
Register of Deeds for Pangasinan issued in the name of the “Heirs of Domingo
Corpus”;

(b)  Ordering the defendants to vacate the aforementioned
property and to turn over the possession thereof and deliver the corresponding
certificate of title (T.C.T. No. 49663) thereto, to the plaintiffs;
and

(c)  Ordering further the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the sum
of P400.00 for damages, P200.00 for attorney’s fees and the costs of this
suit.”^[8]

Counsel for the defendants received a copy of the decision on 7 June 1968,
and on 1 July 1968, he filed a motion for new trial, praying that:  (1) a new
trial be held on the ground that the failure of the defendants and their counsel
to be present at the pre-trial conference set for 28 August 1967 was due to
mistake or excusable negligence; (2) the decision dated 1 April 1968 be set
aside and the defendants be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses for the
plaintiffs and to present evidence on their behalf; and (3) the defendants be
awarded such other reliefs and remedies as are just and equitable under the
premises.

In support of his motion for new trial, counsel for the
defendants contended that he complied with the requirement regarding notice to
adverse parties by sending a copy of his motion for postponement to counsel for
the plaintiffs by registered mail on 15 August 1967; and that his non-appearance
at the pre-trial conference on 28 August 1967 was justified as he had to attend
on the same date another hearing in the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija.

Counsel for the defendants further claimed that Domingo Corpus
died on 15 April 1956, and not in 1948, as claimed by the plaintiffs, so that
the defendant Jacinta Corpus, although a spurious child of Domingo Corpus, is
entitled to a share in the estate of said Domingo Corpus.  A copy of the death
certificate of Domingo Corpus, attested to by the Local Civil Registrar of
Muñoz, Nueva Ecija where the said Domingo Corpus died, was attached to the
motion^[9]

The trial court,
however, in an Order dated 6 August 1968, denied the motion for new trial on the
grounds that the Order issued on 28 August 1967, copy of which was received by
counsel for the defendants on 12 September 1967, had already become final when
the defendants filed their motion for new trial on 1 July 1968; and that the
alleged misrepresentation by the plaintiffs of the true date of the death of
Domingo Corpus is not a ground for new trial.^[10]

Whereupon, the defendants
interposed the present appeal.  They claim that the lower court erred:  (1) in
denying their motion for postponement and in allowing the plaintiffs to present
their evidence ex-parte; and (2) in denying their motion for new
trial.^[11]

We find no merit in the
appeal.  To begin with, we see nothing abusive or irregular in the actions taken
by the lower court in denying the defendants-appellants’ motion for postponement
of the pre-trial conference set for 28 August 1967, and their motion for new
trial.  A close examination of the record shows that said motion for
postponement does not show that a copy thereof had been served upon the adverse
party as there is no proof of service thereof.  In fact, the movants did not
indicate therein the manner by which a copy of the motion was served upon
counsel for the plaintiffs-appellees.  Counsel for the defendants-appellants
merely stated therein:  “Copy furnished Atty. Federico R. Vinluan, San Nicolas,
Pangasinan.” In the motion for new trial, counsel for the defendants-appellants
claimed that he sent to plaintiffs-appellees’ counsel a copy of the motion for
postponement by registered mail.  The motion for postponement, however, does not
contain an affidavit of the person who mailed the motion, showing compliance
with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 11 of the Rules of Court, and the
registry receipt issued by the mailing office, as required by Section 10 of the
same Rule.

Neither does the motion for postponement adverted to state the
time and place for the hearing of the same, as required by the Rules of Court. 
In the said motion for postponement, counsel of the defendants-appellants
addressed the Clerk of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Urdaneta
Branch, thus:  “Upon receipt of the foregoing motion please submit the same to
the Honorable Court for its consideration.”

And yet, the provisions of
the Rules of Court requiring that a motion shall state the time and place of the
hearing of the same are quite clear.  Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of
Court expressly provide that a motion shall state the time and place of the
hearing and shall be served upon all the parties concerned at least three (3)
days in advance.  And, according to Section 6 of the same Rule, no motion shall
be acted upon by the court without proof of such notice, and it has been held
that, in such a case, the motion is nothing but a useless piece of paper.  The
reason is obvious:  unless the movant sets the time and place of hearing, the
court would have no way of determining whether the adverse party agrees or
objects to the motion, and if he objects, to hear him on his objection, since
the Rules do not fix any period within which he may file his reply or opposition
thereto.^[12]

Besides, it appears
that it was defendants-appellants’ counsel who had to be in Cabanatuan City on
the date of hearing so that the defendants-appellants themselves could have
appeared in Court on the date set for the hearing since their presence at the
pre-trial conference was also required.^[13] But, as it stands, both
defendants-appellants and their counsel failed to appear at the pre-trial
conference.  It is a well-settled rule that the grant or denial of a motion for
postponement is discretionary on the court.  The defendants-appellants, as well
as their counsel, should not have presumed that the motion for the deferment of
the pre-trial conference would be granted.  They had no right to rely on the
liberality of the court or on the generosity of the adverse
party.

Defendants-appellants should also have taken upon themselves the
duty to inquire as to what action the court took on their motion for the
postponement of the pre-trial conference.  In this, they
failed.

Moreover, we see no wisdom in re-opening the case for the
reception of the evidence of defendants-appellants.  Their theory is weak and
the presentation of their relied upon evidence, consisting of the death
certificate of Domingo Corpus, will not, as we see it, vary the terms or outcome
of the judgment.  It will also result in a change of the theory of the defense
which is not allowed.  The case involves the ownership and possession of a
parcel of land with an area of 2,153 square meters situated in Barrio
Pinmaludpud, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, registered in the name of “Heirs of Domingo
Corpus, represented by Pedro Aduca, his son-in-law, of legal age, Filipino,
married to Jacinta Corpus and a resident of Lupao, Nueva Ecija, Philippines”
under TCT No. 49663 of the Register of Deeds of Pangasinan The
plaintiffs-appellees claim that they are the legitimate heirs of Domingo Corpus,
the plaintiff-appellee Leona Corpus being his daughter and the
plaintiff-appellee Iladia Corpus, his granddaughter, and therefore, entitled to
the whole estate of said Domingo Corpus at the time of his death in 1948.  They
further claim that the defendant-appellant Jacinta Corpus, the wife of the
defendant-appellant Pedro Aduca, is a spurious child of Domingo Corpus and,
therefore, without any successional rights to his estate at the time of his
death in 1948.

Upon the other hand, defendants-appellants do not really
claim successional rights over the land.  Defendants-appellants base their right
over the land upon the document, entitled:  “Deed of Reconveyance and
Confirmation” which they claim to be a simple deed of sale of the land executed
in their favor by its registered owner, Doroteo Cresencia.

A careful
reading of the aforestated document will show that it is not a simple deed of
sale in favor of the defendants-appellants, as claimed by them, but a deed of
reconveyance of a parcel of land, as it purports to be, where the
assignor has acted as a trustee in securing the title of the land in his name
and now is transferring the same to the rightful owners, the heirs of Domingo
Corpus.  Essential portions of the document read as follows:

“That I, DOROTEO CRESENCIA, of legal age, Filipino, married to Maximiana
Benigas and a resident of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, for and in consideration of the
sum of ONE HUNDRED PESOS (P100.00), Philippine Currency, to me paid in full to
my entire satisfaction, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged from the
Heirs of DOMINGO CORPUS, represented by Pedro Aduca, his son-in-law, of legal
age, Filipino, married to Jacinta Corpus and a resident of Lupao, Nueva Ecija,
Philippines do by these present, hereby reconvey all my rights, interests and
participations over that portion consisting of TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY
THREE (2,153) square meters, or Lot B of Subdivision Plan Psd-34444, of that
parcel of land more particularly described and bounded as
follows:

“That I promised to the vendee before that as soon as I receive the ONE
HUNDRED PESOS (P100.00), Philippine Currency, I will execute the foregoing
instrument to be registered and I promised that I merely acted as a trustee in
securing the title for the above-named vendee until I receive the said title and
I could have executed the proper document for registration.”^[14]

As may be seen therefrom, the defendant-appellant, Pedro Aduca, merely acted
as the representative of the heirs of Domingo Corpus.  The fact that
Domingo Corpus may have died in 1956 (and not in 1948) will not make his
(Aduca’s) claim any better.

WHEREFORE, the judgment
appealed from should be, as it is hereby, AFFIRMED, without pronouncement as to
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Bidin, and
Cortes, JJ., concur.

^[2] Id., pp. 5-6

^[3] Id., p. 9

^[4] Id., p. 11

^[5] Id., p. 12

^[6] Id., p. 14

^[7] Id., p. 35

^[8] Id., p. 16

^[9] Id., p. 20

^[10] Id., p. 14

^[11] Defendants-Appellants’ Brief, p.
1

^[12] Manila Surety &
Fidelity Co. v. Datu Construction Co., L-16636, June 24, 1965, 14 SCRA 435;
Fulton Insurance Co. v. MRR, L-24263, November 18, 1967, 21 SCRA 974;
Sebastian v. Cabal, L-25699, April 30, 1970, 32 SCRA 453.

^[13] Sec. 1, Rule 20, Rules of
Court

^[14] Record on Appeal, pp.
6-7