JUAN SORIANO PETITIONER, VS. HON. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, AND ENGRACIA MEDENILLA, RESPONDENTS.

REYES, J.B.L., J.:

Application for a writ of certiorari to annul and set aside the proceedings
in Civil Case No. 4534 of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur for lack
of jurisdiction. Because the court below threatened to proceed against
petitioner, Juan Soriano, for contempt of court, we issued a writ of preliminary
injunction to hold the proceeding in abeyance.

The background of the case is as follows: Engracia Medenilla had filed action
on 8 April 1959 against Juan Soriano and others to recover a half interest in a
land in Tapul, Baao, Camarines Sur. Because of his failure to answer the
complaint within the reglementary period, the Court of First Instance declared
Soriano in default on 6 June 1959 The case for the plaintiff was subsequently
heard, and her evidence received, and on the 19th November following tee court
rendered a partial decision for the plaintiff Medeinlla, and against Juan
Soriano, declaring plaintiff to be a Half owner of the land in question;
ordering him to vacate its northern half and deliver it to the plaintiff.
Execution was issued in the following December.

Less than four months after the decision, on 14 March I960, Juan Soriano
filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that the court never acquired
jurisdiction over him because he was never served with summons; that as he could
not be contacted in his residence the summons had been served on 2 May 1959 on
Rufina Soriano, a girl 19 years old, and dwelling about one kilometer away from
Soriano’s residence; and she wrote Juan Soriano’s name in the summons, promising
to deliver it to the movant, but subsequently did not do so because she forgot
all about it. The motion was not sworn, but was supported by affidavits of
Rufina Soriano and of the serving officer, Enrique Blasco. Movant prayed that
the proceedings, therefore, should be annulled and set aside, and a new trial
ordered.

This motion was denied by order of 19 March 1960.

On 30 June 1960, Juan Soriano reiterated his previous motion through counsel,
invoking Ang Lam vs. Resillosa, 86 Phil. 447. But upon opposition by counsel for
plaintiff Medenilla, the court of first instance once more denied Soriano’s
motion by order of 21 July 1960, holding that the defect in the service of
summons came under Rule 33 of the Rules of Court, and that the proper remedy was
a petition to set aside the order of default. Soriano then brought the case to
this Court by a petition for certiorari, which was given due course.

We find the appeal untenable. Assuming, arguendo, that the Court below
originally did not acquire jurisdiction over petitioner Soriano, the latter
certainly submitted to it when he filed his first motion for reconsideration and
for annulment of previous proceedings on 14 March I960. Therefore, the denial of
that motion, by the order of 19 March 1960, was binding on petitioner Soriano.
His counsel who was served copy of the order of denial on 25 March 1960 (see
back of fol. 66, original record of case No. 4534), could have appealed from it-
But as no appeal therefrom was perfected within the 30 days immediately
following the order denying reconsideration and annulment of the previous
proceedings became final on 25 April 1960.

Soriano’s second motion of 30 June 1960 insisting on the allegations made in
the first one, and which was also denied by the court, came too late to affect
the order of 19 March 1960, because the second motion was filed long after the
order had become final and executory. In fact, the court below had no choice but
deny it.

Wherefore, the writ of certiorari applied for is denied and our preliminary
injunction, issued on 3 October 1960, is hereby dissolved. Costs against
petitioner Juan Soriano.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon,
Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J. P. and Zaldivar, JJ. concur.